| Author |
Message |
Red Quacker
Captain
Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 714
|
 Wed Jan 22, 2003 5:28 pm Should the U.S. have dropped A-bombs on Japanese civlians? |
|
I have heard people say that the atomic bombs dropped on Japanese cities saved many American lives and Japanese lives by ending the war quickly. Also, it has been pointed out that the war with Japan was entirely Japan's fault because it went around the Pacific conquering Chinese and other people because it wanted to expand its power.
On the other hand, some people believe that the killing of defenseless civilian non-combatants is always wrong.
And on the other hand, some people say that a country in total war uses all of its civilians to help support its country's military.
What do you think?
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Wed Jan 22, 2003 6:42 pm |
|
I think it did save alot of lives. And, for the record, when people use their own as human sheilds, how do you miss hitting civilians?
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Wed Jan 22, 2003 6:49 pm |
|
| Quote: | U.S. military officials believed that such a massive demonstration of U.S. military power was the only reasonable way to force an unconditional Japanese surrender. Though the islands' supply lines had been cut, the Japanese air force was a shambles, and Tokyo was nearly in ruins, it was still widely believed that no conventional military action short of an invasion could make Japan surrender. In her entire history, Japan had never been invaded or defeated. Even after the destruction of Hiroshima, she refused to capitulate.
The decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki—the first and last use of atomic weapons in combat—remains one of the most controversial in military history. Altogether, the two bombings killed an estimated 110,000 Japanese citizens and injured another 130,000. By 1950, another 230,000 Japanese had died from injuries or radiation. Though the two cities were nominally military targets, the overwhelming majority of the casualties were civilian.
Needless Tragedy or Prudent Military Decision?
Because of robust Japanese defenses and the topography of the islands themselves, an amphibious assault would have taken a heavy toll on U.S. forces. Military officials estimated that such an invasion might have incurred up to a million U.S. casualties, with corresponding Japanese military and civilian losses. Two fire bombing raids on Tokyo earlier in 1945 had already killed 140,000 citizens and injured a million more. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then, might actually have spared hundreds of thousands of Japanese and American lives.
This justification, however, is not universally accepted. Some sources' estimates of U.S. casualties are significantly lower—perhaps as low as 50,000 men. It is also not entirely clear that an unconditional Japanese surrender was impossible, especially if Russia had entered the war before the bombing (Russia officially declared war on Japan on August 8, two days after the destruction of Hiroshima).
Some suggest that Truman, fearing a Soviet attempt to dominate the postwar Asian order as it had the Eastern European, ordered the bombing to force Japan's surrender before Russia had the chance to enter the fray (and thus earn the right to affect the peace settlement). Truman may also have wanted to intimidate his potential rival Stalin with the United States' new destructive capability.
Whether the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki constituted a needless tragedy or a prudent military decision will never be certain. Those who made the decision, as well as most of the survivors, are long gone. The effects, though—the lingering scourge of radiation, the memory of the ghastly civilian casualties, the psychological impact of simply knowing that such a destructive force exists—remain. One can only hope that those who now wield the tools of armageddon will remember the lessons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for a long time to come.
|
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Red Quacker
Captain
Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 714
|
| Wed Jan 22, 2003 6:49 pm |
|
Do you mean the Japanese put too much military stuff into their cities?
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Wed Jan 22, 2003 6:51 pm |
|
That, and it's a fact that they, and many other nations will use their own people as human shields. Not everyone places the same value on life.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Red Quacker
Captain
Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 714
|
| Wed Jan 22, 2003 7:47 pm |
|
Are you suggesting that Japanese people don't value life as much as Americans do?
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Wed Jan 22, 2003 8:07 pm |
|
 You will find that I suggest nothing, I will tell you exactly what I think.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Red Quacker
Captain
Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 714
|
| Wed Jan 22, 2003 8:40 pm |
|
^ That was a fairly evasive answer for such a strong declaration 
Japan has its share of skeletons in the closet, but do you see an advancement in their culture over the last 50 years or is it superficial?
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Wed Jan 22, 2003 8:44 pm |
|
It would depend on where you were focusing. In the humanitarian, and civil liberties areas, no, not really. It's ok, even approved for successful business men to keep mistresses. That's pathetic, IMO. And there is still a huge class society. I'm not saying that America doesn't have it's class distinctions, but the barriers are less pronounced.
As for my answer, yes, I suppose you could take it as being evasive, but, what I say is what I mean, I have no hidden agenda.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Los
Commodore
Joined: 07 Jun 2002
Posts: 1336
Location: Oklahoma fa sho!
|
| Thu Jan 23, 2003 12:02 am |
|
There are no civilians in war.
They are men, women, and children.
Plus, the Japanese were training kids as early as 8 to fight the US with propaganda and such.
Its cold to say this but the lives of one hundred and fifty thousand saved over a million.
-------signature-------
Dilithium Crystals prove the existence of protoculture.
|
|
|
Red Quacker
Captain
Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 714
|
| Thu Jan 23, 2003 4:38 pm |
|
If we were in a war against Iraq, would you agree to the use of nuclear weapons against Baghdad? It would save American lives by ending the war more quickly, would it not?
|
|
|
Los
Commodore
Joined: 07 Jun 2002
Posts: 1336
Location: Oklahoma fa sho!
|
| Fri Jan 24, 2003 9:47 am |
|
| Red Quacker wrote: | | If we were in a war against Iraq, would you agree to the use of nuclear weapons against Baghdad? It would save American lives by ending the war more quickly, would it not? |
That's a silly approach to a conversation, citing because we did it once we're privy to do it again.
When Truman gave the order to drop the bombs, US casualties were approaching one hundred thousand. The Pacific war wasn't a conflict in a sense that we see with Afghanistan. Ships were being sunk, marines were island hoping in an attempt at driving the Japanese back. In one word, the policy was 'messy'.
An invasion of mainland Japan would've been very costly, estimates getting to as high as a million or more. I'm almost afraid to ask this but, if you were the leader of a nation and your enemy is sworn to destroy you and doesn't know anything of new hi-tech weapons and only has a one track way of thinking, kill or be killed, how would you react to this?
Oh, just to make sure all bases are covered, there was no diplomatic solution to this either. Japan was hellbent on ruling Asia, if not the world. AND, the US sent footage and asked the Japanese officials to come see the awesome power of the Abomb. What did the Japanese do? Laughed it off.
-------signature-------
Dilithium Crystals prove the existence of protoculture.
|
|
|
Red Quacker
Captain
Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 714
|
| Fri Jan 24, 2003 4:35 pm |
|
| Los wrote: | | Red Quacker wrote: | | If we were in a war against Iraq, would you agree to the use of nuclear weapons against Baghdad? It would save American lives by ending the war more quickly, would it not? |
That's a silly approach to a conversation, citing because we did it once we're privy to do it again. |
That's not my point. The point is, the atomic bombs were used because an invasion of Japan would have cost hundreds of thousands of American lives--possibly more than a million. The act of dropping the atomic bombs cost America zero lives. This represents a net gain for America of about a million lives.
In Iraq, an invasion might cost between 100 to 10,000 lives. Everyone has their own estimates. Again, dropping atomic bombs on Iraq would end the war at a cost of zero American lives, representing a net gain for America of however many lives it would take to stop Iraq with an invasion.
My question is this: how many American lives lost in an invasion of Iraq would it take to justify the use of a nuclear weapon against Iraq? If it only cost 100 Americans, should we sacrifice those one hundred so we don't have to use nukes? If it cost 10,000 Americans, is that so many that we should save them by using nukes?
|
|
|
Captain Dappet
Forum Revolutionist
Joined: 06 Feb 2002
Posts: 16756
Location: On my supersonic rocket ship.
|
| Fri Jan 24, 2003 6:28 pm |
|
| Maquis74656 wrote: | | I think it did save alot of lives. And, for the record, when people use their own as human sheilds, how do you miss hitting civilians? |
Correction: American lives.
BIIIIIG difference.
-------signature-------
"Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste"
|
|
|
Los
Commodore
Joined: 07 Jun 2002
Posts: 1336
Location: Oklahoma fa sho!
|
| Fri Jan 24, 2003 8:09 pm |
|
| Red Quacker wrote: | | Los wrote: | | Red Quacker wrote: | | If we were in a war against Iraq, would you agree to the use of nuclear weapons against Baghdad? It would save American lives by ending the war more quickly, would it not? |
That's a silly approach to a conversation, citing because we did it once we're privy to do it again. |
That's not my point. The point is, the atomic bombs were used because an invasion of Japan would have cost hundreds of thousands of American lives--possibly more than a million. The act of dropping the atomic bombs cost America zero lives. This represents a net gain for America of about a million lives.
In Iraq, an invasion might cost between 100 to 10,000 lives. Everyone has their own estimates. Again, dropping atomic bombs on Iraq would end the war at a cost of zero American lives, representing a net gain for America of however many lives it would take to stop Iraq with an invasion.
My question is this: how many American lives lost in an invasion of Iraq would it take to justify the use of a nuclear weapon against Iraq? If it only cost 100 Americans, should we sacrifice those one hundred so we don't have to use nukes? If it cost 10,000 Americans, is that so many that we should save them by using nukes? |
A nuclear attack will be and must be an approach we don't use. If we begin nuclear warefare again, then we're leaving the door wide open for future terrorists attack involving dirty nukes.
Now there is no justification for killing millions for the sake of twenty and vice versa. War is pitiless and stupid, only hurting those we intended to help all along.
There will be no use of nuclear weapons.
-------signature-------
Dilithium Crystals prove the existence of protoculture.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Sat Jan 25, 2003 6:38 am |
|
| Captain Dappet wrote: | | Maquis74656 wrote: | | I think it did save alot of lives. And, for the record, when people use their own as human sheilds, how do you miss hitting civilians? |
Correction: American lives.
BIIIIIG difference. |
No. Not just American lives. Lives of allies, and on both sides, whether you like it or not.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Lindley
Vice Admiral
Joined: 18 Sep 2001
Posts: 6194
Location: Fairfax, VA
|
| Fri Jan 31, 2003 10:13 am |
|
I'm not blind----I've noticed that anti-American sentiment has been building recently. Any use of nukes would drive it up exponentially----and that is something we do not need. If for no other reason than that----and there are other reasons, too----we can't use Nukes.
-------signature-------
"Every minute you keep River Tam from me, more people will die."
"You think I care?"
"Of course you care!"
www.serenitymovie.com
|
|
|
Tyvek
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Jul 2001
Posts: 2821
Location: Mississippi, USA
|
| Sat Feb 01, 2003 11:14 am |
|
| Red Quacker wrote: | ^ That was a fairly evasive answer for such a strong declaration
Japan has its share of skeletons in the closet, but do you see an advancement in their culture over the last 50 years or is it superficial? |
True But have you seen that the "Progress" of Japan and for that matter Germany was possible through the help of America and her allies?
|
|
|
PicardsTrueLove
Commodore
Joined: 26 Dec 2002
Posts: 1840
Location: Nowhere, Earth
|
| Sat Feb 01, 2003 2:15 pm |
|
I agree that during WW2, Japan had to be stopped. But dropping a nuclear bomb once was bad enough. Twice was unacceptable. The continuing repercussions of the nuclear explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki are devastating and unfair. Why should the children of later generations suffer because of the sins of their elders? The bombs dropped on Japan were the earliest versions of the atomic bombs that we have built: now, we have bombs with ten times the power. Any civilization dropping a nuclear warhead at this point would be committing suicide, facing the possiblities of nuclear holocaust and a cold, nuclear winter. The planet could be destroyed by a nuclear war now, and it was no different in WW2. The scientists who created the original A-bomb had no idea what the effects would be, and yet they dropped the bombs anyway. Now we know what they can do. Let's not make the same mistake twice.
-------signature-------
ABB: When Clinton lied, no one died.
"The truth is not found in science, or on some unseen plane, but by looking into your own heart." -Dana Scully, "Trust No 1"
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Sat Feb 01, 2003 4:53 pm |
|
In war, any civilian death should be unacceptable. They can't help it that their country's at war and thus shouldn't have to sacrifice their lives for it.
|
|
|
Captain Jayson Day
Vice Admiral
Joined: 09 Jan 2002
Posts: 5313
Location: Utopia, Ontario
|
| Sun Feb 02, 2003 11:31 am |
|
Since the US is the only country to use a A-bomb too destory, is has bin givin an image with attracts it to terroist. but if there did not have to destory and kill so many people that war would have cost much more
-------signature-------
Lieutenant: "I think we can handle one little girl. I sent two units, they're bringing her down now."
Agent Smith: "No lieutenant, your men are already dead."
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Mon Mar 10, 2003 10:16 pm |
|
Considering that the Japanese did'nt surrendur after 1 Nuclear attack, I don't think they would've surrendured any other way.
-------signature-------
Mitt Romney for president 2008!
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Thu Mar 13, 2003 8:20 am |
|
Well, it was shown that the Japanese could have invaded the U.S. up to Chicago since our pacific fleet was destroyed. And, as said earlier, they exited the war and lots of American and Japanese lives were saved. It was necessary, even if it was not right.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Fri Mar 14, 2003 11:23 pm |
|
Imagine a man when it all began
The pilot of "Enola Gay"
Flying out of the shockwave on that August day
All the powers that be, and the course of history,
Would be changed forevermore...
From one of my favoite songs: The Manhattan Project.
-------signature-------
Mitt Romney for president 2008!
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Sat Jan 22, 2005 9:39 pm |
|
*BUMP*
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
