The dropping of the bomb, right or wrong?

Discussion in 'Science & History' started by pikatore, Feb 21, 2007.

  1. pikatore

    pikatore Registered Member

    We all know how the US dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan, killing countless citizens and causing grevious radiation poisioning to countless more. The most cited justification for this I've heard is that it saved more lives in the long run.

    Firstly, who is the US to know how many lives could or could not be saved if the bomb wasn't dropped, and secondly, should a nuke EVER be dropped, no matter what the circumstances are?

    We don't see the US throwing nukes around today, not only because of Mutually Assured Destruction, but simply because of the moral implications of doing such a thing.

    I believe that weapons as powerful as the nuke that was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki should be locked away forever.

    Thoughts?
     

  2. Kazmarov

    Kazmarov For a Free Scotland

    Well it's a slanted question, and always will be.

    The United States had done very detailed predictions of a land invasion of Honshu, and estimated several hundred thousand American casualities. The island had never been successfully invaded, and the Japanese people were not going to let them just waltz right in.

    To America it was the right choice: it saved thousands of American lives, which was of course their top priority. On an international scope it was a fairly grevious action, its saving grace being it scared people shitless, thus probably removing any chance of nuclear weapons being used again.

    The answer is totally objective, and thus fairly silly. In war their are no ethics, and had not been since actions like Sherman's March to the Sea a hundred years prior. I personally only have moderate objections to the action, though depending on your heritage you may have more or less.
     
  3. Yeah as said above it would have taken hundreds of thousands of our own troops deaths to take the home island of Japan not to mention many more thousands of lives taken on the Japanese side as well. So it was a no win situation and a very difficult one at that. Many innocent civilians died unfortunately, but I guess that's the ultimate cost of such a brutal and terrible war anyways.
     
  4. pikatore

    pikatore Registered Member

    Oh really? Well why didn't America just nuke Iraq? It would have saved more lives in the long run right???
     
  5. Kazmarov

    Kazmarov For a Free Scotland

    Firstly, cool it. If you talk out of your ass in this thread it will just be locked.

    Well, the purpose of the Iraq War (allegedly) was to eliminate Saddam Hussein and his regime. In WW2 that wasn't the case, it was the surrender of the whole nation.

    I don't see why we point out the 200,000ish civilian casualities especially: more than 50,000,000 civilians died in WW2. The Nazis killed loads of Poles, Jews, homosexuals and Gypsies. The Japanese themselves had killed millions of Chinese civilians. It was simply a tragedy in a war of tragedies.

    100,000ish civilians died in the Battle of Okinawa, which was a much smaller scale battle than the planned Operation Downfall. Downfall had projected casualities of 456,000-1,200,000. The Japanese had 600,000 men stationed in southern Japan, three times as many men as the eventual casualities. There's copious evidence that the bombings were the least bloody way out of a bloody situation.
     
  6. Bunny

    Bunny Guest

    In 1952 Oppenheimer used Hindu scripture (according to Vishnu I think off the top of my head): "I have become death, the destroyer of worlds". But yes, I agree with the poster that stated that many more men would have lost their lives in a conventional assault on the Japanese homeland.
     
  7. pikatore

    pikatore Registered Member

    So that justifies it then. Next time there's a war, well just do the maths, and if a nuke ends up with less casualties in the long run, lets toss it on them.

    You might be a moderator, but I know where the line is as well. That post earlier made a valid point.
     
  8. Yeah Iraq doesn't even come close to WW2, you can't compare. We would have bombed the shit out of Japan with conventional bombs anyways that would have killed just as many civilians if we didn't use the nukes. It doesn't justify anything but war is a ugly thing and hard decisions are made. You'll be glad that the U.S. had the bomb and not Japan and Nazi Germany.
     
  9. pikatore

    pikatore Registered Member


    Iraq doesn't come close to WW2? In what? Casualty count? A war is a war at the end of the day, I believe. Certain wars shouldn't have any more of a looser leash on things like nukes, compared to others.


    An unsupported claim.


    Well this post is about the justification itself, PERIOD. Nothing else.

    War is an ugly thing, and hard decisions are made. But so are ugly ones, i believe.

    What makes you say that? You wouldn't happen to be American, would you?
     
  10. Kazmarov

    Kazmarov For a Free Scotland

    Operation Downfall's estimated casuality ranking was four times that of the entire Vietnam War, having casualities equivalent to 1 percent of the US population at the time. I doubt there will be any war of modern times that would have any justification of nuclear devices.

    The bombing was equivalent to, or even less severe than the alternatives. Unless you can provide any statistics or evidence (which you've skirted) it was among the best if not the best option available.

    Well no. Invading Iraq wouldn't have caused in excess of 1 million casualities. They're fundamental different.

    Well no, you've veered far away from that, with your talk about the Iraq war. Everyone knows nuclear action against Iraq wouldn't be justified.

    Google: Operation Downfall. The estimations are there. If you're too lazy to look up info (and, indirectly, realize you're wrong), it's noone's fault but your own.
     

Share This Page