Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Hiroshima AND Nagasaki?
  • Subject: Hiroshima AND Nagasaki?
Subject: Hiroshima AND Nagasaki?


Posted by: Bornswavia

Posted by: Hayabusawarrior
Ask the the thousands of people who would have died in the invasion (on both sides) if it was necessary.

Or ask the hundreds of thousands who died in the nuking..oh..wait..we killed all those civilians.

Unethical, unjustifiable, immoral.

Why don't you ask those who died in the firebombings? Or do you not care about those because they didn't get nuked?

  • 01.03.2013 3:19 PM PDT

Yay yuh!!!!!

Yes it was.

  • 01.03.2013 3:30 PM PDT

Posted by: Billygoat456
I'll bring the tritium laser cutters if you bring the beer!

Funny story.

Was the air bombing of London justified?

  • 01.03.2013 3:31 PM PDT


Posted by: lightlamp2
Necessary. But not right

Posted by: lightlamp2
Necessary. But not right

Posted by: lightlamp2
Necessary. But not right

Posted by: lightlamp2
Necessary. But not right

  • 01.03.2013 3:32 PM PDT


Posted by: monitor 16807
Was the air bombing of London justified?

It was done in retaliation to the British bombing of Berlin.

  • 01.03.2013 3:33 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: RockdaleRooster

Posted by: I give tuggers

Posted by: The Random
Posted by: I give tuggers

Posted by: And Im Here Too
I hear Japan was planning to surrender before we dropped the second bomb, but we 'wanted to make sure' or some -blam!- like that.
Yep.

It wasn't a "necessary evil" at all. And people have this idea that Japan would've never given up, which is far from true.

The reality is that the US bombing had more to do with flexing muscle and testing their new toy than ending the war.

Oh goodness, you don't really believe that do you?
It's better than excepting whatever textbook explanation was given to me.

A real historian questions and evaluates, and doesn't just except whatever reasoning is given to them.

Besides, it's a piss poor excuse to say the only way to stop a country is to bomb them. Especially when they were considering conceding anyway.

That opinion wouldn't be in a textbook without significant backing. You can spout all the anti-government crap you want but when you do your research you will see there is a lot of evidence to support the bombings. As much as there was against it.
I wasn't trying to be anti-government. I'm simply pointing out that there's more to it than what you learn in school.

  • 01.03.2013 3:38 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: The Random
Posted by: I give tuggers

Posted by: The Random
Posted by: I give tuggers

Posted by: And Im Here Too
I hear Japan was planning to surrender before we dropped the second bomb, but we 'wanted to make sure' or some -blam!- like that.
Yep.

It wasn't a "necessary evil" at all. And people have this idea that Japan would've never given up, which is far from true.

The reality is that the US bombing had more to do with flexing muscle and testing their new toy than ending the war.

Oh goodness, you don't really believe that do you?
It's better than excepting whatever textbook explanation was given to me.

A real historian questions and evaluates, and doesn't just except whatever reasoning is given to them.

Besides, it's a piss poor excuse to say the only way to stop a country is to bomb them. Especially when they were considering conceding anyway.

*Accepting

I gather from your posts that you are very confused with what reasoning went behind America's decision to use atomic weapons near the end of the war.

Here, educate yourself.
You're missing my point entirely. I didn't say the U.S. wasn't justified in the use of the weapons. I was saying that there is more to it than it just being a last resort weapon.

Also, excuse my spelling error.

  • 01.03.2013 3:40 PM PDT

This is now my main account. My former account was xKingGhidorahx. I've been on this site since 2009.

Posted by: I give tuggers

Posted by: The Random
Posted by: I give tuggers

Posted by: The Random
Posted by: I give tuggers
Yep.

It wasn't a "necessary evil" at all. And people have this idea that Japan would've never given up, which is far from true.

The reality is that the US bombing had more to do with flexing muscle and testing their new toy than ending the war.

Oh goodness, you don't really believe that do you?
It's better than excepting whatever textbook explanation was given to me.

A real historian questions and evaluates, and doesn't just except whatever reasoning is given to them.

Besides, it's a piss poor excuse to say the only way to stop a country is to bomb them. Especially when they were considering conceding anyway.

*Accepting

I gather from your posts that you are very confused with what reasoning went behind America's decision to use atomic weapons near the end of the war.

Here, educate yourself.
You're missing my point entirely. I didn't say the U.S. wasn't justified in the use of the weapons. I was saying that there is more to it than it just being a last resort weapon.

Also, excuse my spelling error.

Excused.

Posted by: I give tuggers
It wasn't a "necessary evil" at all. And people have this idea that Japan would've never given up, which is far from true.

The reality is that the US bombing had more to do with flexing muscle and testing their new toy than ending the war.

This is what led me to believe that you are confused, and it contradicts what you just wrote.

  • 01.03.2013 3:51 PM PDT

**Devil's advocate of the Flood. My posts may or may not represent my personal opinion, I just enjoy disagreeing with people. None of my posts are representative of the official view of the Navy or any government agency.

Non Sibi Sed Patriae
Homework questions? Forget the Flood, join The Academy.
I've got a fan!


Posted by: Locke357


Trufax. WWII was ugly for everyone. Few people realize the U.S. firebombed Tokyo to the ground, along with numerous other cities.

  • 01.03.2013 4:04 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: I give tuggers

Posted by: The Random
Posted by: I give tuggers

Posted by: The Random
Posted by: I give tuggers
Yep.

It wasn't a "necessary evil" at all. And people have this idea that Japan would've never given up, which is far from true.

The reality is that the US bombing had more to do with flexing muscle and testing their new toy than ending the war.[/quote]
Oh goodness, you don't really believe that do you?
It's better than excepting whatever textbook explanation was given to me.

A real historian questions and evaluates, and doesn't just except whatever reasoning is given to them.

Besides, it's a piss poor excuse to say the only way to stop a country is to bomb them. Especially when they were considering conceding anyway.

*Accepting

I gather from your posts that you are very confused with what reasoning went behind America's decision to use atomic weapons near the end of the war.

Here, educate yourself.
You're missing my point entirely. I didn't say the U.S. wasn't justified in the use of the weapons. I was saying that there is more to it than it just being a last resort weapon.

Also, excuse my spelling error.

Excused.

Posted by: I give tuggers
It wasn't a "necessary evil" at all. And people have this idea that Japan would've never given up, which is far from true.

The reality is that the US bombing had more to do with flexing muscle and testing their new toy than ending the war.

This is what led me to believe that you are confused, and it contradicts what you just wrote.
Fair enough. Frankly, I know very little about the Pacific theater, and I've always been more interested in Europe.

But the fact is, as much justification as there is for the bombing, there is just as much the likelihood that there was more to it than just ending the war. The U.S. and the USSR were already in a race to build atomic weapons. Is it not at least somewhat feasible that the U.S. wanted to demonstrate the capabilities they had? I don't know. I'm not trying to be a conspiracy theorist or anything like that. I understand and agree with SOME of the reasoning behind the bombing. My only point is, you can't take what is written in history books at face value all the time. You have to infer and consider the other factors that play into events.

It's not always as simple as, "All of Japan was fanatical, every man, woman and child would've fought to defend their country, and there was no other option than to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki". From what I've read, Japan was considering surrender, but the whole diplomatic situation was a mess and they didn't respond when the U.S. gave then warning.

  • 01.03.2013 4:09 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Intrepid Heroic Member
  • gamertag: KB0n3s
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Lethal Spaniard

Posted by: RockdaleRooster
Yes. Absolutely necessary.

  • 01.03.2013 4:10 PM PDT


Posted by: theHurtfulTurkey

Posted by: Locke357


Trufax. WWII was ugly for everyone. Few people realize the U.S. firebombed Tokyo to the ground, along with numerous other cities.

Because they didn't get nuked. People hear atomic and nuclear and lose their -blam!-. They don't care about those that died of asphyxiation or lost their home due to fire. They only care about those who got an instant death from an atomic weapon or suffered the ill effects of radiation.

  • 01.03.2013 4:10 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Astronomy FTW

Tubas Represent!


Posted by: Ling Lings Head
Was that second bomg really necessary? I mean, the emperor of Japan did not surrender after the first but, was it really necessary with a second bomb?

Your opinion?
The point of the Atomic Bomb was to persuade Japan to surrender without having to launch a massive land assault(the U.S. knew they were going to win, but having a land assault on Japan would result in major casualties). I guess when Japan decided to stick it out after the bomb, the U.S. decided to make them surrender.

  • 01.03.2013 4:12 PM PDT

Glory and fame, blood is our name!
Souls full of thunder, hearts of steel!
Killers of men, a warrior's friend!
Sworn to avenge our fallen brothers!
Sons of the gods, today we shall die.
Open Valhalla's door!
Let the battle begin, with swords in the wind! Hail Gods of War!

Dropping 1 would have made Japan and Russia think that's all we had. Therefore, 2 were necessary. That showed we had the power to not only make an atomic bomb, but that we could make as many as we needed. Anything more than 2 would've been too much, given the targets.

It was more of a message than anything. I think the world might be worse off had we not had that show of power.

  • 01.03.2013 4:13 PM PDT


Posted by: Ling Lings Head
Was that second bomg really necessary? I mean, the emperor of Japan did not surrender after the first but, was it really necessary with a second bomb?

Your opinion?


Eh, they sure tested their uranium atom bomb... May as well test their plutonium atom bomb too whilst they're at it...

  • 01.03.2013 4:15 PM PDT


Posted by: Hayabusawarrior
Ask the the thousands of people who would have died in the invasion (on both sides) if it was necessary.


Yes, because the thousands of civilians who died would have slaughtered them.

OP: I think it was an atrocity. I don't really care for WWII history, but nuking a primarily civilian target is wrong no matter which way you look at it, IMO.

  • 01.03.2013 4:18 PM PDT

"People who see life as anything more than pure entertainment are missing the point."

-George Carlin

I'm sick at how much everyone here has swallowed the propaganda.

It was a war crime, without question.

  • 01.03.2013 4:23 PM PDT

http://www.bungie.net/News/content.aspx?type=topnews&link =BWU_072310
Made it into the update!

I'm going to go through the principle of Double Effect.
-Last Resort
-action itself good
-good effect is the intention
-good effect not produced by means of evil effect
-proportionality of good>evil

Here we go.

-It was not the last resort, invasion is another option. (But a worse one)
-The action is the dropping of an atom bomb. But this is warfare. Killing has always been a goal in warefare.
-It was intended to cause Japan to surrender.
-Unless you call agens bellum an evil means, it is not produced by an evil means. The war is fought to be won.
- Hundreds of Thousands of American Lives and the Japanese race > Hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives.

So we have:
-Reasonable
-Reasonable
-Definite
-Reasonable
-Definite

It is okay in my book.

  • 01.03.2013 4:38 PM PDT

"I will show you how a true Prussian officer fights!"

"And i will show you where the iron crosses grow..."

- "Cross of Iron"


Posted by: Cheezburger2012
I'm sick at how much everyone here has swallowed the propaganda.

It was a war crime, without question.


...People are still saying the same thing after this has been debated for 250 + replies.

[Edited on 01.03.2013 4:39 PM PST]

  • 01.03.2013 4:39 PM PDT

Name's Pixel.
There's a 87.7% chance that I'm better than you.
At everything.
Also.
Please message me if you have any objections.
ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)


Posted by: Ling Lings Head
emperor of Japan did not surrender after the first but, was it really necessary with a second bomb?


That's exactly the reason why.

  • 01.03.2013 4:41 PM PDT

Name's Pixel.
There's a 87.7% chance that I'm better than you.
At everything.
Also.
Please message me if you have any objections.
ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)

They sunk one ship and we didn't surrender yet, but was it really necessary to sink the rest?

  • 01.03.2013 4:43 PM PDT

This is now my main account. My former account was xKingGhidorahx. I've been on this site since 2009.

Posted by: I give tuggers
Fair enough. Frankly, I know very little about the Pacific theater, and I've always been more interested in Europe.

But the fact is, as much justification as there is for the bombing, there is just as much the likelihood that there was more to it than just ending the war. The U.S. and the USSR were already in a race to build atomic weapons. Is it not at least somewhat feasible that the U.S. wanted to demonstrate the capabilities they had? I don't know. I'm not trying to be a conspiracy theorist or anything like that. I understand and agree with SOME of the reasoning behind the bombing. My only point is, you can't take what is written in history books at face value all the time. You have to infer and consider the other factors that play into events.

It's not always as simple as, "All of Japan was fanatical, every man, woman and child would've fought to defend their country, and there was no other option than to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki". From what I've read, Japan was considering surrender, but the whole diplomatic situation was a mess and they didn't respond when the U.S. gave then warning.

I do believe that the U.S. wanting to intimidate the U.S.S.R. was a likely motive for using the bombs, since that was when tensions began to build between the two nations.

From the school history text books I've read, I haven't really read anything that suggested that: "All of Japan was fanatical, every man, woman and child would've fought to defend their country, and there was no other option than to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki." I don't believe that one bit, and the people that do/did are completely wrong IMO.

  • 01.03.2013 4:48 PM PDT


Posted by: Double A
They sunk one ship and we didn't surrender yet, but was it really necessary to sink the rest?

  • 01.03.2013 4:49 PM PDT

This is now my main account. My former account was xKingGhidorahx. I've been on this site since 2009.

I really urge you guys to watch this episode from the documentary The World at War. It's really informative and has interviewees that were directly involved with the atomic bombings.

  • 01.03.2013 4:55 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

Posted by: Ric_Adbur
Posted by: Baph117
Canadian Na­zism is a polite ideology, ok?
"Into the boxcar now... there you go. Oh, watch your head. Here, let me help you... Yep, showers are right through there. No problem at all."


Posted by: monitor 16807
Was the air bombing of London justified?
That's an entirely inappropriate comparison. America faced a dichotomous choice between invasion or atomic bombing, and both were proposed solutions to ending the war. The Germans dropping bombs on London was a smaller step in a plan of larger conquest. The two aren't comparable at all, and it is ridiculous for you to propose such.

  • 01.03.2013 7:50 PM PDT