rogerroger
New Member
Do you believe that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WWII justified?
If not, what do you think would have been the better solution?
If not, what do you think would have been the better solution?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Hiroshima and Nagasaki
- Thread starter rogerroger
- Start date
Quoth The Raven
Half Arsed Muse
Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not justified. Basically it was a test to see what the thing would do in a real life situation.
rogerroger
New Member
Could you honestly say that for World War II?Druidus said:
rogerroger
New Member
The atomic bomb was tested in New Mexico prior to the bombings. I'm pretty sure they knew what it could do.lady_lazarus said:
And if your belief still stands, what would have been the better solution to get the Japanese to surrender. In my opinion. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just some major shoves to stop the Japanese.
You have to remember, these are not people who are ready to just drop their guns and let their country be taken over. They were taught that Americans would eat their prisoners on first chance.
So would you rather have taken the islands off the coast of Japan bit by bit, then have another major invasion in Japan?
Quoth The Raven
Half Arsed Muse
I could be wrong, but I don't think they dropped it on a village full of people in New Mexico. That's what I mean by real life situation. It's the difference between testing a drug in a lab and doing human trials.rogerroger said:
Things weren't going well with the Japanese as it was...had the Soviet Union - who was acting as an intemediary for them at the Potsdam Conference - conveyed the questions and concerns of the Japanese government(specifically retention of the emperor)- instead of quietly pursuing their own ends, it could have been resolved earlier than it was, without the dropping of atomic bombs.
My solution would have been for either Japan to speak directly to the Allies, or pick a middle man who wasn't acting on their behalf with one side of it's face while readying itself to go to war with them on the other.
skills101
Vicar of Christ
What would that accomplish? Being that America's main goal (for the Pacific Theater) was the unconditional surrender of Japan, do you think Japan would stop their fighting? Remember, not only would Japan be losing their own country, they would lose their entire foothold in China and in south-east Asia.lady_lazarus said:
Quoth The Raven
Half Arsed Muse
Gee, I don't know, maybe they could have thrashed something out. The fact of the matter is that they were trying to work something out with the allies and in the end they surrendered unconditionally because they couldn't see another option, which was a conclusion that would have been reached eventually anyway. It's not like the people in power were unaware they were in the ****. Everyone acts as though they were fanatical to the point of complete stupidity and living in the land of denial. THEY WERE NEGOTIATING. You don't negotiate if you think you're gonna win, you negotiate to try and avoid losing too much.skills101 said:
Instead they had an atomic bomb dropped on them, and because they didn't immediately roll over because they were too busy running aroung going "WTF was that!" they had another one dropped on them 3 days later.
If the Nazis had developed the technology before the US and lobbed a couple on Britain, somehow I doubt people would look upon it with such favour...
Then again, maybe if Britian hadn't decided that they were going to MAKE Japan open it's borders to foreigners after they decided they didn't want a bar of anyone, the whole thing wouldn't have happened.
World War II was a war no one could ignore, or have the attitude "It's somebody else's problem" - Hitler was going for the World.
The Japahese would have been incredibly hard to defeat, because, like the suicide bombers in Iraq, they believed in suicide bombings - It was an honour to die; which is why they showed no mercy for allied P.O.W's - the Japanese thought them all lower than vermin, because to surrender was an alien thought in their eyes.
War is not an 'event' anyone wants to see, but unfortunately, they happen. When they do so, the moralities of those who think that they should retalliate are stretched; do we kill or not ?
My mother was a pacifist, as was her sister, yet they both joined the forces, driving lorriesm - whatever they could do to help the war effort. It wasn't a case of 'I can't kill because Killing is wrong' - it was a case of If I don't kill the world will be run by a psychotic megolomaniac who has made a 'deal' with the devil.
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were immoral, but on the flipside, they probably saved the world from a protracted war that would have continued for many years. The fact that you Americans invented 'The Bomb' was a necessary event, bcause the Germans were'nt far behind - in fact, after the war many German scientists emigrated to the States to continue research and study.
As was said in a previous thread, Killing is not justifiable, but sometimes it is necessary; I can only hope I am not put on the spot during my lifetime.
The Japahese would have been incredibly hard to defeat, because, like the suicide bombers in Iraq, they believed in suicide bombings - It was an honour to die; which is why they showed no mercy for allied P.O.W's - the Japanese thought them all lower than vermin, because to surrender was an alien thought in their eyes.
War is not an 'event' anyone wants to see, but unfortunately, they happen. When they do so, the moralities of those who think that they should retalliate are stretched; do we kill or not ?
My mother was a pacifist, as was her sister, yet they both joined the forces, driving lorriesm - whatever they could do to help the war effort. It wasn't a case of 'I can't kill because Killing is wrong' - it was a case of If I don't kill the world will be run by a psychotic megolomaniac who has made a 'deal' with the devil.
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were immoral, but on the flipside, they probably saved the world from a protracted war that would have continued for many years. The fact that you Americans invented 'The Bomb' was a necessary event, bcause the Germans were'nt far behind - in fact, after the war many German scientists emigrated to the States to continue research and study.
As was said in a previous thread, Killing is not justifiable, but sometimes it is necessary; I can only hope I am not put on the spot during my lifetime.
Halcyon
Lord of the Badgers
The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the greatest atrocities, next the holocaust, ever perpetrated by human beings. The American government quite literally melted 300,000 men, women and children indiscriminately just to see what would happen. War is evil, but even in war there should be certain rules, like only attacking military targets. But did they cripple Japan's war machine? No they just A-bombed H and N and napalmed Tokyo killing 500,000 civilians in total - plus the radiation kills and mutates children for years afterwards. It makes me sick just thinking about it. I won't look at this thread again becasue if i saw someone defending the killing of half a million innocent people in such a gruesome way i might do something i'd later regret, so don't bother addressing any posts to me.
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
In war, people die. Some die by small arms fire, some die by bombs, some die by bayonette, some die by starvation, some die by freezing to death, some are tortured to death, etc., etc., etc.
To call out the deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki as somehow less "humane" than any of the other deaths smacks of hypocrisy (to me, at least).
Just for the sake of edification, the combined Allied air forces participated in the fire bombing of Dresden - this includes bombers flying for the British RAF. The express purpose of firebombing Dresden was to break the will of the German civilian population - although the Allies did at least try to target the factories that produced ball bearings in the process. While we are appealing to emotion to make our point, I guess I should go into the description of what happened to the children of that city. I won't, because I don't need to. Please take two minutes to visit this site, and read the first two paragraphs (it isn't graphic):
http://www.rense.com/general19/flame.htm
If someone (anyone) wishes to demonize the Americans for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you might want to take an honest look at the actions of your own government first.
The truth is that during war, governments tend to act in their own self interest - ALL governments. Regardless of which country one lives in, you can rest assured that your government withheld information, even from it's allies, whenever they saw it to be of benefit to themselves.
TVOR
PS - I guess we can all have our own version of righteous indignation, so I'll take mine when someone attacks America for conducting itself in the exact same manner as their own country. Thanks.
To call out the deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki as somehow less "humane" than any of the other deaths smacks of hypocrisy (to me, at least).
Just for the sake of edification, the combined Allied air forces participated in the fire bombing of Dresden - this includes bombers flying for the British RAF. The express purpose of firebombing Dresden was to break the will of the German civilian population - although the Allies did at least try to target the factories that produced ball bearings in the process. While we are appealing to emotion to make our point, I guess I should go into the description of what happened to the children of that city. I won't, because I don't need to. Please take two minutes to visit this site, and read the first two paragraphs (it isn't graphic):
http://www.rense.com/general19/flame.htm
If someone (anyone) wishes to demonize the Americans for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you might want to take an honest look at the actions of your own government first.
The truth is that during war, governments tend to act in their own self interest - ALL governments. Regardless of which country one lives in, you can rest assured that your government withheld information, even from it's allies, whenever they saw it to be of benefit to themselves.
TVOR
PS - I guess we can all have our own version of righteous indignation, so I'll take mine when someone attacks America for conducting itself in the exact same manner as their own country. Thanks.
Quoth The Raven
Half Arsed Muse
Actually, prior to WW2 Japan's treatment of POW's had been exemplary...to the extent that many internees from the Russo-Japanese war elected to remain in Japan after the war was over rather than return to their home countries.
If they were never going to surrender, they wouldn't have surrendered. Full stop. They just would have sat there saying,'drop 'em til we're all dead, ya cowardly ********.', we're never giving in.
Japan was trying to negotiate, but made the grave mistake of choosing Stalin as their intermediary. He had bucket loads of troops and an interest in improving his world position, which would have been aided by Russia boosting the allied troops in the Pacific. He really had no interest in expediting the end of the war.
147,000 tons of bombs were dropped on Japan (excluding the firebombing of Tokyo and the atomic bombings).43,000 tons on factories that had ceased production due to lack of raw materials, the rest on residential areas. There was very little food. The populace were starving and miserable. The governement wanted their concerns adressed and a surrender negotiated.
Oh, and by the way Skills, during the negotiations for the end of the Russo-Japanese war, they gave up Manchuria to China and lived to tell the tale. And I reiterate, that if you were indeed correct that there was no way they would surrender, then they'd either still be fighting today or they'd all be dead, regardless of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Neither is the case.
If they were never going to surrender, they wouldn't have surrendered. Full stop. They just would have sat there saying,'drop 'em til we're all dead, ya cowardly ********.', we're never giving in.
Japan was trying to negotiate, but made the grave mistake of choosing Stalin as their intermediary. He had bucket loads of troops and an interest in improving his world position, which would have been aided by Russia boosting the allied troops in the Pacific. He really had no interest in expediting the end of the war.
147,000 tons of bombs were dropped on Japan (excluding the firebombing of Tokyo and the atomic bombings).43,000 tons on factories that had ceased production due to lack of raw materials, the rest on residential areas. There was very little food. The populace were starving and miserable. The governement wanted their concerns adressed and a surrender negotiated.
Oh, and by the way Skills, during the negotiations for the end of the Russo-Japanese war, they gave up Manchuria to China and lived to tell the tale. And I reiterate, that if you were indeed correct that there was no way they would surrender, then they'd either still be fighting today or they'd all be dead, regardless of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Neither is the case.
Melody
Well-Known Member
I can't say it better than that so Frubals to you!The Voice of Reason said:
War is nasty all around. Do I grieve for the people in Nagasaki and Hiroshima...yes. Do I grieve for the people who died and, worse, lived through the sickness of radiation poisoning? Yes. Let's not make out that there was no provocation and this was nothing more than a "let's see what happens." Ever hear of the Bataan death march? Pearl Harbor? Nanking Massacre? What about the numerous other atrocities such as biochemical warfar lab experiments, military sexual slavery and the killing and torturing of allied POW's *and* civilians including women and children.
Yes it was a tragedy, but at the time they deemed it to be less of a tragedy than allowed the war to continue. And they would have done the same if they had the capability.
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
No Michel, it was not. Halcyon put up his post, then disappeared, not to defend his position. "Hit and run" postings get my hackles up.michel said:Totally agree.
I hope that it wasn't I whom you saw as 'demonizing the Americans' - If it was, you misunderstood me.
Thanks,
TVOR
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
The biggest evil of the atom bomb was its indiscriminate distruction. Prior to the atom bomb we could at least clame to be bombing 'stratigic' targets with civilians as collateral damage. Not so with the atomic wepon. It killed everyone and everything in a massive area and those it didn't kill it poisoned and burned, consigning them to slow painful death at a later date. We didn't choose those cities based on strategic importance we chose them because they would give us the best testing variables.
The true horror of the atom bombs wasn't thier use in war IMHO it was the gleefullness we took in thier use and development, eaven now when we know what they can and will do.
Our country and others who tested the bombs knew of the effects radiation had on civilians yet tried to cover it up. A good record of this battle can be found in the book "the day we bombed Utah". That is part of the horror of the atomic weapon.
Current wepons are more than 100 times more powerful than the ones used in WWII and we want to make more, bigger, more effiecent and more deployable on the modern battlefield. The atomic bomb is the siren song to the military mind, ultimate distructive power at the fingertips. Side effects are just the price of 'doing business'.
That is the horror of the atomic weapon.
wa:do
The true horror of the atom bombs wasn't thier use in war IMHO it was the gleefullness we took in thier use and development, eaven now when we know what they can and will do.
Our country and others who tested the bombs knew of the effects radiation had on civilians yet tried to cover it up. A good record of this battle can be found in the book "the day we bombed Utah". That is part of the horror of the atomic weapon.
Current wepons are more than 100 times more powerful than the ones used in WWII and we want to make more, bigger, more effiecent and more deployable on the modern battlefield. The atomic bomb is the siren song to the military mind, ultimate distructive power at the fingertips. Side effects are just the price of 'doing business'.
That is the horror of the atomic weapon.
wa:do
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
War is inexcusable.
However, we were not the aggressor in either of the World Wars. We weren't the aggressor in the Korean or the first Gulf War. We weren't even the aggressor in the Afghanistan war. In both Vietnam and in the second Gulf war we were.
I am not a tactician. I do not understand the moving of men and/or resources around in order to get ahead. Consequently, I won't even TRY to second guess why we sent the two a-bombs. It's a tragedy that they felt they were neccesary. I do know that at one point, the outcome of the war was very much in question. Our servicemen had a real fear of Japanese occupation. Now you can threaten me all you want and never have to worry about retaliation. You could probably even hurt me and not worry about being hit back. But put anyone in my family in jeopardy, and ALL bets are off.
The attack on Pearl Harbor was just as HORRIBLE. Hopefully those who condemn the two a-bombs will doubly condemn an unprovoked attack.
However, we were not the aggressor in either of the World Wars. We weren't the aggressor in the Korean or the first Gulf War. We weren't even the aggressor in the Afghanistan war. In both Vietnam and in the second Gulf war we were.
I am not a tactician. I do not understand the moving of men and/or resources around in order to get ahead. Consequently, I won't even TRY to second guess why we sent the two a-bombs. It's a tragedy that they felt they were neccesary. I do know that at one point, the outcome of the war was very much in question. Our servicemen had a real fear of Japanese occupation. Now you can threaten me all you want and never have to worry about retaliation. You could probably even hurt me and not worry about being hit back. But put anyone in my family in jeopardy, and ALL bets are off.
The attack on Pearl Harbor was just as HORRIBLE. Hopefully those who condemn the two a-bombs will doubly condemn an unprovoked attack.
Halcyon
Lord of the Badgers
I knew i shouldn't have looked at this god awful thread again, but my damnable curiosity got the better of me.
TVOR, Hit and Run posting Ha! Maybe you're right, maybe it is a stupid thing to do, but this subject is one i feel VERY strongly about, as i was typing my post i felt angry, at the time i didn't want to read any moronic replies trying to defend these evil acts.
You bring up Dresden, i don't know where you dug up that website but its a load of bullcrap, 30,000 people died at Dresden no more, do the maths that means the A-bombs did 10 times more damage plus they left radioactive residue which killed for many years after. I'm not defending the bombing of Dresden for one minute though, it was an abhorrent act and i would happliy give up my life for it to never have happened - but this post wasn't about Dresden it was about something much bigger. Dresden was napalm, another despicable weapon of war, the same America used on Tokyo just with more devastating effect. People die in a horrible way from a napalm attack, but the people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima would have given anything to trade places - if you're outside the vapourisation range of an atomic blast your eyes burst and your skin melts from your bones - while your still alive and can feel it.
I'm not defending my country's actions in bombing civilians, we knew what it was like only too well, my grandmothers were lucky enough to survive the Blitz, many of their friends weren't. At the time it was a case of they bomb us, we bomb them, the situation was entirely different - the U.S suffered something like 200 mainland civilian casulaties from Japanese balloons, so you kill 300,000 Japanese civilians, yeah easily defensible.
Britains conduct in the war while sometimes bad, was not exactly the same as the dropping of the a-bombs, its not even comparable. But make sure you understand this, if Britain had dropped those bombs i would feel exactly the same way, I demonise America because it was a demonic thing to do.
TVOR, Hit and Run posting Ha! Maybe you're right, maybe it is a stupid thing to do, but this subject is one i feel VERY strongly about, as i was typing my post i felt angry, at the time i didn't want to read any moronic replies trying to defend these evil acts.
You bring up Dresden, i don't know where you dug up that website but its a load of bullcrap, 30,000 people died at Dresden no more, do the maths that means the A-bombs did 10 times more damage plus they left radioactive residue which killed for many years after. I'm not defending the bombing of Dresden for one minute though, it was an abhorrent act and i would happliy give up my life for it to never have happened - but this post wasn't about Dresden it was about something much bigger. Dresden was napalm, another despicable weapon of war, the same America used on Tokyo just with more devastating effect. People die in a horrible way from a napalm attack, but the people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima would have given anything to trade places - if you're outside the vapourisation range of an atomic blast your eyes burst and your skin melts from your bones - while your still alive and can feel it.
I'm not defending my country's actions in bombing civilians, we knew what it was like only too well, my grandmothers were lucky enough to survive the Blitz, many of their friends weren't. At the time it was a case of they bomb us, we bomb them, the situation was entirely different - the U.S suffered something like 200 mainland civilian casulaties from Japanese balloons, so you kill 300,000 Japanese civilians, yeah easily defensible.
Britains conduct in the war while sometimes bad, was not exactly the same as the dropping of the a-bombs, its not even comparable. But make sure you understand this, if Britain had dropped those bombs i would feel exactly the same way, I demonise America because it was a demonic thing to do.