Atomic Bomb

Discussion in 'World Events' started by GB-GIL Trans-global, May 1, 2003.

?

What do you think of the atomic bomb droppings?

  1. They were nesscary (and not war crimes or terrorism), and I have no problem with the fact that they

    6 vote(s)
    14.3%
  2. They were nesscary (and not war crimes or terrorism), but the fact that they were used on civilians

    7 vote(s)
    16.7%
  3. They weren't nesscary, but they certainly weren't war crimes.

    4 vote(s)
    9.5%
  4. They were war crimes, but only because Japan had already surrendered.

    3 vote(s)
    7.1%
  5. They were war crimes because they were used on civilian populations.

    11 vote(s)
    26.2%
  6. They were terrorism.

    11 vote(s)
    26.2%
  1. GB-GIL Trans-global Senator Evilcheese, D-Iraq Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,718
    Could the only atomic bombs dropped on an enemy be considered war crimes, or even terrorism?

    People still die in hospitals because of both of the atom bombs.

    Both were dropped on civilian centres of population, I doubt more than a few military or gov't personnel were killed.

    It came after the surrender of the Japanese, what's up with this? The president even wrote to his diary about this.

    I think generally that it was just a flexing of muscles to show the USSR "if you don't back down, this is what we can do".

    And for those who continue to say that it was nessecary, I would ask if it was nessecary to drop on a civilian population instead of a military population.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. goofyfish Analog By Birth, Digital By Design Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,331
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Allahs_Mathematics Mar'Ifah Ahl As-Suffah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,111
    Terrorism , and to be perfectly clear , the 2 greatest acts of terrorism the world has ever known . In the shortest period of times , they have given the maximum opression to the largets quantity in the most intense quality , and they just left it there for many years to follow .

    Only for those 2 bombs USA could get 100 9-11's it wouldnt make things up . Not even if all 100 happened on the same day , not even if they happened in the same hour .

    And as u vuew to what it was the reaction ?
    An attack on a MILITARY basis .
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Gifted World Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,113
    One thing I've noticed is the justification commmonly used was that this would produce fewer casualties(on both sides) than an invasion. The blockades would have eventually starved Japan into submission without either. Would the world have been a better place if we hadn't dropped them? Who knows.
     
  8. GB-GIL Trans-global Senator Evilcheese, D-Iraq Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,718
    Me! Me! I know! I know! Yes, it would've been. Japan had already surrendered.

    There would be a hell of a lot less anti-Amerectionism... and no war mongerers like Bush would get vetoed into orifice. (but he didn't really get vetoed into orifice in the first place, did she? he just won the erectoral cockage because our messed-up cystem!)
     
  9. SuperFudd Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    296
    GB:
    Thank you for finally shareing that secret with the rest of mankind. (Nuking AFTER surrender).
    Why did you wait so long??

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Carnuth i dont Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    547
    because of the atomic bombings:

    american lives saved- the estimated casualty rates among an invasion of Japan was estimated at the time to be around 700,000 to 1,000,000 lives.

    japanese lives saved- if no bombs were dropped, massive conventional aerial bombing of the mainland would have continued, with civilian deaths numbering hundreds of thousands. In the further destruction of the Japanese transportation system, no food could be imported, no food from Hokkaido, the northern island where most food was grown, could cross to Honshu, the main island, ensuring millions of Japanese starved to death.

    no addition of another front to the cold war- with the destruction of the japanese army in manchuria by the russians, they would surely have invaded the sakkharils(if i spelled it right) and Hokkaido, annexing it undoubtedly and creating a larger eastern front for the Cold War. Even in the original battle plans for invading japan, america chose to invade at two points, the southernmost, and the northernmost point on Honshu, so as to prevent the soviets from crossing down.

    -in the entire pacific war, no japanese soldiers surrendered to the americans. some were captured, but None surrendered. Their fight to the death philosophy may have lead to millions of deaths on both sides, and fanatical zeal once americans set foot on the mainland would have been a disaster for both sides.

    though the reasons for dropping the bombs were more politically motivated, showing the soviets our power and our willingness to use them, the use of the nukes however unfortunate was better than millions dead on both sides. Does anyone remember that the firebombing of Dresden killed over 500,000 people? Less than that of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.
     
  11. Cowboy My Aim Is True Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,707
    The bombs were dropped on the 6th and 9th of August. Japan surrendered 14 August 1945.

    If you win the electoral vote you are, by mandate of the American Constitution, voted into office.
     
  12. Compose! Registered Member

    Messages:
    7
    the first one i can see how some people would argue about... but what about the second bomb which was dropped just a week after the first?
     
  13. Cowboy My Aim Is True Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,707
    Japan still had not surrendered. Even after the second bomb was dropped they waited five days to give up.
     
  14. theonlyguyever omg met's lake out!!1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    559
    I'd state my opinion on this, but I basically agree with everything Carnuth just said. The bombs prevented millions more casualties, and they were justified.
     
  15. Clockwood You Forgot Poland Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,467
    Better suffer x than y iff x < y.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2003
  16. theonlyguyever omg met's lake out!!1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    559
    Although crudely stated, you are quite correct.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. GB-GIL Trans-global Senator Evilcheese, D-Iraq Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,718
    The bombs were dropped on the 6th and 9th of August. Japan surrendered 14 August 1945.

    That information is incorrect. Japan surrendered 17 July 1945. Where do you get these sorts of inaccuracies?

    If you win the electoral vote you are, by mandate of the American Constitution, voted into office.

    ...no, you aren't. While you may hold orifice, you aren't "vetoed in".
     
  18. GB-GIL Trans-global Senator Evilcheese, D-Iraq Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,718
    Which casualties did they prevent? How could they have prevented an invasion had Japan already surrendered? Unless of course we were planning to violate international law and invade anyways...
     
  19. GB-GIL Trans-global Senator Evilcheese, D-Iraq Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,718
    What do you mean?
     
  20. GB-GIL Trans-global Senator Evilcheese, D-Iraq Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,718
    because of the atomic bombings:

    american lives saved- the estimated casualty rates among an invasion of Japan was estimated at the time to be around 700,000 to 1,000,000 lives.


    What the hell does that matter? Why the hell would we invade Japan sicne they had already surrendered?

    japanese lives saved- if no bombs were dropped, massive conventional aerial bombing of the mainland would have continued, with civilian deaths numbering hundreds of thousands.

    Wow, you really overestimate American foolishness and cruelty. Why would we continue massive conventional bombing of the "mainland" (of which Hiroshima and Nagasaki are both a part...), although that doesn't really exist since Japan consists soleyly of islands, since Japan had already surrendered? The US has done some pretty crooked stuff, but I don't recall knowing we've done anything that bad.

    In the further destruction of the Japanese transportation system, no food could be imported, no food from Hokkaido, the northern island where most food was grown, could cross to Honshu, the main island, ensuring millions of Japanese starved to death.

    While I doubt any of this would've happened, since Japan had already surrendered, if it did happen perhaps this would've helped to reverse the Japanese genocide against the Ainu, the rightful owners of Hokkaido (really called "Ainu Moshir")

    no addition of another front to the cold war- with the destruction of the japanese army in manchuria by the russians, they would surely have invaded the sakkharils(if i spelled it right)

    Sakhalin and the Kuriles. Or Karafuto and Chishima. Or Ainu Moshir. (the third is the correct one)

    and Hokkaido, annexing it undoubtedly and creating a larger eastern front for the Cold War. Even in the original battle plans for invading japan, america chose to invade at two points, the southernmost, and the northernmost point on Honshu, so as to prevent the soviets from crossing down.

    I'm sure we would support Japan to keep the Soviets out if we were so concerned with those evil commie bastard dick licking ass slickongs.

    -in the entire pacific war, no japanese soldiers surrendered to the americans. some were captured, but None surrendered. Their fight to the death philosophy may have lead to millions of deaths on both sides, and fanatical zeal once americans set foot on the mainland would have been a disaster for both sides.

    Why would that have been a problem, since Japan already surrendered? ...

    though the reasons for dropping the bombs were more politically motivated, showing the soviets our power and our willingness to use them, the use of the nukes however unfortunate was better than millions dead on both sides. Does anyone remember that the firebombing of Dresden killed over 500,000 people? Less than that of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

    Duh they were better than millions dead on both sides. But that's irrelevant... stop going off topic, please.

    ...and that is because firebombing can spread much further than nuclear bombs. Once you drop a nuclear bomb, it will contaminate to a certain perimiter. However, firebombing will ignite anything flammable and can keep taking more victims until somebody puts the fire out.
     
  21. GB-GIL Trans-global Senator Evilcheese, D-Iraq Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,718
    You are using inaccurate information to indoctrinate innocent unsuspecting sciforums members. I don't like that.

    You and I both know very well that Japan had surrendered well before then, on 17 July.
     
  22. GB-GIL Trans-global Senator Evilcheese, D-Iraq Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,718
    By the way, who voted They were nesscary (and not war crimes or terrorism), and I have no problem with the fact that they were used on civilians.? I am surprised at your inhumanity.
     
  23. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    First, I can't find any reference to the early surrender. Perhaps you could provide some proof. Wings were still attacking US fleets 6 days before the first bomb was dropped.
    http://www.microworks.net/pacific/battles/end_of_japan.htm

    Also, the US was already firebombing entire cities because it was still in the mindset that the majority of the population would not surrender. The nukes were the equivalent of the firebombing... but quicker. Sure, it would be nice if we could fight wars and leave civilians alone... but in a total war you have little choice.

    I think that the US may have acted differently if they knew how little resistance they would see... but hindsight is 20/20.
     

Share This Page