The Atomic Bombs

[Feren Silver]

This is one of those topic that just came to my head. A girl in my English IV class was giving a presentation on 'How America did terrible things by dropping the atomic bombs on Japan."

I brought up the fact that:

A professor of political science at the University of Hawaii, states that between 1937 and 1945, the Japanese military murdered from nearly 3,000,000 to over 10,000,000 people, most likely 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos, and Indochinese, among others, including Western prisoners of war.

Yet when we bombed Japan:

Within the first two to four months of the bombings, the acute effects killed 90,000–166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 in Nagasaki.

Not to mention more than that would have been lost on both sides easily assuming the United States carried on the invasion of the Japanese mainland. Someone is thinking, "Oh well those cities became radiated and unlivable." But, really? What would be left of Japan after the United States invaded it? The losses would have been so massive it would have all been burned to the ground to force Japan into submission. Then come talk to me about land being unlivable.

I'm just confused how someone can take the moral high ground about the deaths of thousands, when those thousands killed millions. Maybe I'm not seeing this in the same light as most people, but explain.

Both quotes are from Wikipedia respectively.

 

[Plznate]

The sad reality of the example is that every country, and every government, has its own shady scenarios. Eeach one can point to the others wrong-doings, but each government has them. Proud american here, but I understand that there is an agenda behind everything.

 

[Angelmax]

Personally I believe the use of the bombs was justified, as a land invasion would have been far more devestating for both sides.

America did not nuke Tokyo, as they could have, they targeted smaller cities.

In any case, the US had already devestated Tokyo with firebombing, which killed far more people than both atomic bombs combined.

 

[Finally_Found_Freedom]

I don't understand the problem. Japan did terrible things; America retaliated with terrible things. Wasn't that the point of her presentation?

 

[The Riddler_]

Personally I believe the use of the bombs was justified, as a land invasion would have been far more devestating for both sides.

America did not nuke Tokyo, as they could have, they targeted smaller cities.

In any case, the US had already devestated Tokyo with firebombing, which killed far more people than both atomic bombs combined.

There is a big difference; the Fire bombing was over a long period of time. The A-Bombs were in a single occurance.




You don't kill the innocent. I don't care if the military casualties would be in the hundred thousands. They accepted the possibility of death, not the civilians. The US had much higher Kill/Death ratio then them anyway.

 

[Angelmax]

There is a big difference; the Fire bombing was over a long period of time. The A-Bombs were in a single occurance.




You don't kill the innocent. I don't care if the military casualties would be in the hundred thousands. They accepted the possibility of death, not the civilians. The US had much higher Kill/Death ratio then them anyway.

Most of the fire-bombing occurred during one night, and that night alone is estimated to have killed more people than the attack on Hiroshima.

Why do you make the distinction that all civilians are innocent, and it's absolutely fine for soldiers to die? Many of the Japanese troops did not wish to fight.

 

[cotonpk3r]

The reason people say the United States did a horrible thing is not because the killed thousands of people.

But rather because they made millions of people have to live with the untested effects of the radiation emitted from a nuclear reaction.

If you read books about Hiroshima, they're not about the bomb being dropped, they're about the times after the bomb went off and everything was cleaned up.

 

[cotonpk3r]

Woops.. double post.. forums lagged.

 

[Angelmax]

The people with horrific burns from the firebombing suffered equally devastating wounds.

 

[The Riddler_]

Why do you make the distinction that all civilians are innocent, and it's absolutely fine for soldiers to die? Many of the Japanese troops did not wish to fight.

I would not put my money on that. Civilians are not in the war, soldiers are. If you enlist, you may die. If you do, you do. You knew what you were getting yourself into.

Those that are in the army against their will; blame the government for letting it happen.

 

[Honeo]

I would not put my money on that. Civilians are not in the war, soldiers are. If you enlist, you may die. If you do, you do. You knew what you were getting yourself into.

Those that are in the army against their will; blame the government for letting it happen.

He was saying that some of the Japanese soldiers were forced into the army. Some didn't have a choice which makes them just as innocent as the civilians. Whether the government forced them to enlist doesn't change their innocency.

War is a necessary evil. If we attack, we show the world we're not afraid to retaliate. If we don't attack, we show the world we're weak. Also, public opinion plans a role in it. After 9/11, the public was devastated, saddened, then angry; in that order. Justice had to be served, so we went after the man "responsible." At Pearl Harbor, I bet most of the public had no idea why Japan attacked us. Someone, or a country, had to be held responsible, and justice was served.

Now, whether the action was moral or not is all up to you. The angrier you are about the event, the more and more killing innocent people makes sense. But on the contrary, if you have little to no anger, the action appears to be barbaric.

 

[The Riddler_]

He was saying that some of the Japanese soldiers were forced into the army. Some didn't have a choice which makes them just as innocent as the civilians. Whether the government forced them to enlist doesn't change their innocency.

Read;

Those that are in the army against their will; blame the government for letting it happen.

War is a necessary evil.

No it is not.

After 9/11, the public was devastated, saddened, then angry; in that order. Justice had to be served, so we went after the man "responsible."

The men responsible were the owners of the building. The owner of the WTC recieved a large insurance payout after fighting in court several times, suing the airport companies. When the building was not hit by a plan. It was brought down by bombs.

At Pearl Harbor, I bet most of the public had no idea why Japan attacked us. Someone, or a country, had to be held responsible, and justice was served.

The man in charge let it happen. It's his fault for letting it be a surprise attack.

 

[Coinshare]

Whenever I think of Atomic Bombs it reminds me of the beginning from the movie "The Hills Have Eyes"...

It's crazy how we have A-Bombs that are 100 times better then the one the U.S dropped in Japan.

 

[SuF]

The man in charge let it happen. It's his fault for letting it be a surprise attack.

The Japaneses diplomats were supposed to hand over a declaration of war to us on the morning of the attack, but for some reason the message did not get through to them and it ended up being a surprise.

 

[Honeo]

Read;

I did... You read.

Whether the government forced them to enlist doesn't change their innocency.

No it is not.

It is in human nature to fight, whether it's with words or actions. You can't tell me I'm wrong.

The men responsible were the owners of the building. The owner of the WTC recieved a large insurance payout after fighting in court several times, suing the airport companies. When the building was not hit by a plan. It was brought down by bombs.

Conspiracy. There is evidence backing both sides.

The man in charge let it happen. It's his fault for letting it be a surprise attack.

The Japaneses diplomats were supposed to hand over a declaration of war to us on the morning of the attack, but for some reason the message did not get through to them and it ended up being a surprise.

 

[cotonpk3r]

Whenever I think of Atomic Bombs it reminds me of the beginning from the movie "The Hills Have Eyes"...

It's crazy how we have A-Bombs that are 100 times better then the one the U.S dropped in Japan.

Hehe silly movie.

And that's because splitting a hydrogen atom puts out a ton more energy than the plutonium used in the Fat Man and Little Boy bombs

 

[The Riddler_]

I did... You read.

It's their government's fault for forcing them to join, and they are still innocent.

It is in human nature to fight, whether it's with words or actions. You can't tell me I'm wrong.

Actual war is not "needed". A simple conversation with agreements can save lives.

Conspiracy. There is evidence backing both sides.

I meant to say WTC, Tower 7.

"Instead of renovation, Silverstein is rebuilding, funded by the insurance coverage on the property which 'fortuitously' covered acts of terrorism. Even better, Silverstein filed TWO insurance claims for the maximum amount of the policy, based on the two, in Silverstein's view, separate attacks. The total potential payout is $7.1 billion, more than enough to build a fabulous new complex and leave a hefty profit for the Silverstein Group, including Larry Silverstein himself." - http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/silverstein.html

The payout was fact. Not a conspiracy.

 

[Honeo]

It's their government's fault for forcing them to join, and they are still innocent.

Right, it is the government's fault for forcing them. But that's not what we are talking about. We are talking about the millions of innocent people who died in the bombings. I'm just reiterating a point you we're arguing earlier.

Actual war is not "needed". A simple conversation with agreements can save lives.

Sorry, I meant to phrase it as: it is in human nature to fight when something goes wrong or doesn't go their way.

I meant to say WTC, Tower 7.

"Instead of renovation, Silverstein is rebuilding, funded by the insurance coverage on the property which 'fortuitously' covered acts of terrorism. Even better, Silverstein filed TWO insurance claims for the maximum amount of the policy, based on the two, in Silverstein's view, separate attacks. The total potential payout is $7.1 billion, more than enough to build a fabulous new complex and leave a hefty profit for the Silverstein Group, including Larry Silverstein himself." - http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/silverstein.html

The payout was fact. Not a conspiracy.

Payout = fact. 9/11 planned by Bush = Conspiracy.

 

[LMCampbell]

I believe the bombing was justified due to the fact that the US asked Japan to surrender when Hitler died and the war against germany was won.

If the US hadn't acted and knowing that Japan wasn't going to give up because of "honour". If the US hadn't acted more innocent lives could have been wasted.

(This is my opinion)

 

[The Riddler_]

Payout = fact. 9/11 planned by Bush = Conspiracy.

You say that as if it was false and everything that is a Conspiracy is untrue. Though, the Bush family knew the BinLaden family and they vacationed the BinLaden's.

Also, I never said Bush's name.