Use of the atomic bomb against Japan

Exactly. Let alone the fact that the Soviet Union would have seized every opportunity to occupy the country.

 

Meh, this is a pointless argument, because it's delving into the hypothetical.
Personally, I do believe that eventual occupation was inevitable (just as occurred with Germany).

You're right, the war was already done for the Japanese - but it was both cheaper and easier to just drop the bomb.

 

If Japan was going to be invaded, military strategists predicted that the casualties would have ranged in the millions for civilians and military personnel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

So yes, it would have been "cheaper" in regards to human lives lost.

 

lol, so if i tell you im going to destroy your house and you stay in it, it's your fault you died, not mine?

 

I think you've mis-conceptualized fault here. In war, it's always the loser's fault.

 

Mutually assured destruction isn't a joke, you clearly know nothing about military presence in the middle east. On a further note the gouvernment did not "fuck over" Japan, the descision to drop both bombs in the long run saved thousands of American, Japanese, and Chinese lives, by ending the war.

 

Rather their civilians than our soldiers.

 

Meh. War ethics was not mutually considered by either party. In war, no guidelines for morals leads to no practice of them.

 

Cough..Cough...Cough...

The Japanese were masters of immoral murder see Nanking.

 

I don't get why normal every day people have to suffer for the wrong doings of their government.

 

What? Japanese troops were trained to fight till death. And the the japanese government would been replaced in a heartbeat or it would go under martial law. The bomb was justified in a sense that nothing else would have stopped the japanese. But I don't agree with the lasting effects the radiation had on japans land.

 

We had a weapon that would scare the shit out of them and make them leave the war. We needed a test subject to test it on. We used it on them, so they quit.

We were justified to use it... They were going to kill our men, women, and children so we killed theirs.


All in all, war is wrong.

Spread love, not hate.

 

Since most of the deaths were civilians if consider this an act of terrorism.
The radiation released from the bombs is still causing health problems in Japan today.
Justify that.

 

Does it matter? People died. You don't know the soldiers. They're just random people who volunteerd. Their civilians were not even involved in the war and could have resented the fact that they were in the war totally, but you'll never know now.

But, if you win a dirty war, your government will seem corrupt.

 

Better than losing a clean one....

 

The Japanese wouldn't have given up. We were totally justified in dropping BOTH a-bombs on them. I wonder if more a-bombs would have been dropped if they didn't surrender.

 

They offered a conditional surrender.

I don't see how you can ever justify the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians. (Mostly women and children too)

Unlike you, to me murder is murder.

 

I'm half and half on this one. It's true to an extent. But you don't need to kill EVERYONE to win a war. Yet, if you lose an honorable war to ruthless brutes, they probably would have died.

 

Most of you have it all terribly wrong. You are viewing countries as single entities, so if one country did something bad, then that country is fully responsible. This is not how it works, a country is comprised of many many individuals, and less than 1% of those individuals are responsible for the actions of that country's government, which represents all the individuals of that country. So what ends up happening is if a government of one country decides to kill innocent individuals of another country, then that country thinks it has the right to kill innocent individuals of the other country, when in fact the true criminals are the governments. There is no such thing as a group or a country, only individuals.

 

Indivisuals put the people in a high place because they have the same views as the representative.