Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

I know that. He made the hypothetical assumption that Germany would use nukes on both fronts. I hypothetically assume that if the US had nukes while they still had two fronts, they would do the same.

 

It depends on what you mean.

If you mean when the war broke out would America have used nuclear weapons if they had them?

Or do you mean during the war, at a specified point?

Clarify

 

Ok, let's say... right before D-day the US makes a handful of nuclear bombs. Now, how would the massive expected causalities of Operation Overlord and following struggle through France and Germany weigh against dropping a nuke on a major city in Germany? My guess is on the nuke.

 

because he was responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians? he should have been put to death.

[citation needed]

 

The use of weasel words such as potentially negates the need for citations

 

So you support using lethal force, as long as it could save people? By that logic all incarcerated criminals should be killed, in order to save lives potentially.

 

The dropping of the bomb was during a war. No-one should be or will be 'punished', particularly as America was not the aggressor in the Pacific.

On the question of whether the Allies would of used an atomic weapon against Germany just prior to D-Day, I believe they probably would have. Though, by the time D-Day and Operation Overlord were put into action, Germany and her allies were already in decline, and it is possible that the vast loss of human life and culture would be seen as unnecessary.

But, some time after D-Day the city of Dresden was reduced to rubble after a bombing barrage similar to a nuclear weapon, so it is entirely possible the US would have used a nuclear bomb should they have possessed one.

 

No country in the world would want to admit their mistakes. United States won the war. It doesn't matter. They would take responsibility for it if they had lost the way but they won. They did take some responsibility though and helped Japan become one of the strongest nations today.

 

The Japanese would have killed off all their men fighting anyway; I believe America had to take the responsibility for stopping war under any circumstances.

The only thing I am against is the long term damage on newer Japanese generations that shouldn't have to be punished for things they shouldn't be held responsible for.

 

Countries act in their own interests, USA dropped the bombs and would go to great lengths to justify it as a necessary evil. USA did take responsibility, but just shrugged it off as not such a big deal.

 

To clarify: you're saying it is okay to directly cause the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, whose only crime was to live in Japan, provided that it happened during a war?

 

Don't be naive children.

You spent billions of dollars on a bomb that could end a war; you're going to use it. It's just a cheaper alternative to firebombing, which let me remind you, killed more civilians in entirety.

 

You're putting words in my mouth.

The US was not the aggressor in the Pacific. Unlike Japan, they had nothing major to gain from winning a war, it was a war of defence.

Let me preface with this. I do not support nuclear weapons, and I believe that a nuclear disarmed world would safer and stabler.

Yet, the alternative to bombing a relatively small city, Hiroshima, was a land attack that would of costed hundreds of thousands more lives on both sides.

By bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki instead of Tokyo, the US minimised civilian casualties by an immense amount.

In conclusion, yes I do believe it is acceptable (or was then) for a country which had been attacked without warning to retaliate with a nuclear weapon against a small city to end a costly war.

 

Okay let me throw this out there.

We bombed Nagasaki, they did not give in.

We bombed Hiroshima, they did not give in.

We threatened to drop another (bluff), they surrendered.

It is all a part of war and Japan would have not surrendered if we had marched in there and killed all their soldiers. They didn't plan to win, they were just stuck up to their ninja ways. (I don't mean that to be a joke)

We also dropped fliers before the bombing. If I got one of those fliers I would have left the city

^-- I like it.

 

I do believe Pearl Harbor was a naval base. Not a civilian city.


Killing civilians as an easy target to trigger a surrender is murder. Regardless of the outcomes of war.

 

Something that like that won't happen (most likely) nowadays. Keep in mind WWII was 70 years ago almost. Also if a nuke was dropped on the states I'm sure your country would suffer badly from it.

 

Regardless of your moral opinion, the US and the Allies did what had to be done to end the war, and prevent hundreds of thousands more deaths.

You must be able to see that a land invasion of the Japanese mainland would have resulted in millions of unneeded deaths.

 

Yup, people are too blind to see it.

Options:
A. Kill 10 innocent people.
B. Kill 1 Soldier and 100 innocent people.

We chose option A, how dare we?

More people would have died if we invaded.

 

While you're trivialising the debate slightly with assumed statistics, that is basically what I was trying to say.

 

Yeah I know I wasn't trying to be precise I was just giving something people could understand.