Was it good that the U.S dropped the atomic bombs?

It's interesting to note here that the two nukes dropped were of different design. An uranium bomb was dropped on hiroshima and a plutionium bomb on nagasaki.

The skeptic could read this as 'testing' weapons of war.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

One point that seems to go unnoticed is that before the atomic bombs were used, the US was using conventional bombs all over Japan, including a fire raid on Tokyo which had more deaths than either of the A bombs. No one seems to be overly concerned about the morality of these raids. What's the difference (except technology).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm quite aware of these bombings. If the US had lost the war they would have been trialled for war crimes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Spurious: I think you fail to grasp the concept of war.
You hurt an enemy until he is either incapable or unwilling to fight you anymore and is willing to agree to any terms you lay down.

 

WWII was different than many other wars in that it was TOTAL war, encompassing all of society. Nukes were dropped because they were cheaper than their equivalent in conventional bombs and put fewer US troops at risk.

 

Oh really? Well then we should've nuked Iraq. That sure would have made them agree to the terms that the U.S wanted. Part of war is also trying to end a conflict peacefully, losing as few casualties as possible. However, the U.S had spent billions of dollars on the development of the atomic bomb, and felt the need to show everyone that they did it first. The two bombs were dropped for compeltely false reasons. Why on earth would you only wait TWO days for surrender. To catch the attention of those that might have missed it? Or because you didn't want your only plutonium bomb to go to waste?

 

Are you telling me that MOABs aren't big enough?

 

These things were new. We weren't even sure if they would work. Threatening to drop the bomb was out of the question. We'd look really stupid if they didn't go off. I'm sure you've heard the story about some scientists fearing that the bomb would set off a chain reaction and ignite all the oxygen in the world? We said, fuck it, try it anyway.

Anyway, wasn't there a couple days between the two bombings? How long should they have waited?

 

Meh. It seemed appropriate to the thread.

 

well the loss of life was bad i think that it was a good thing that the bombs were dropped. many more people would have died if it wasnt for the bombs being dropped. and dont forget that there nearly wasnt a surrender from the japanese as many people opposed surrendering to the americans as it would make them look weak

 

I'm sure that it was in the report of the flight crew that the first bomb actually blew up delivering a fine mushroom cloud. Not to mention other intelligence reports.

They should have set an ulitimatum after the first bomb if they were really after minimizing casualties and ending the war quickly. That could just have been 2 days...or a week. It doesn't really matter. They didn't. They had no intention. They dropped it again without warning.

I'm ok with excuses, but this is just a case of logic.

 

japan sneaks up and bombs the crap out of pearl harbor with no warning
and we are supposed to say okay guys we are going to bomb such and such a place?
it's too bad the US didn't have 6 bombs.

 

Yes, but now we move back to motives. I can totally agree that there was a specific reason or reasons for dropping 2 nukes. But I do not think that ending the war quickly and minimizing the casualties was one of them. It had already been possible to end the war by diplomatic means. It was just not acceptable as a solution because part of the american leadership was looking for something more than just the end of the war.

Eisenhower
"it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." (Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63, pg. 108).
Was this man a complete fool lacking an overview of the war situation? I seriously doubt it.

 

even when japan was reeling from the knockout blows dealt by the americans they still managed to have plenty of fight left in them
for example at the battle of okinawa at the end of the war the japanese sent 16 year old pilots to crash their planes into our ships
such tactics are an act of desperation but still the japanese fought on and they fought hard.
invading their homeland would have cost 10's of thousands of lives

if you read about how the japanese defended the outlying islands of their empire it isn't hard to see that the japanese did not surrender

 

And if we look at the whole thing objectively; did the USA really have the right for revenge? What was the biggest victim of the US? It's pride?

Casualties during WW2
USA
military - 295.000
civilian - nihil

Japan
military - 1.700.000
civilian - 360.000

Now can you objectively look at these figures and say the US suffered beyond reason during WW2? Because the japanese bombed pearl harbor? A military base.

The soviet union had 13 Million military casualties! The UK had 450.000 military casualties. Germany 3.2 million military and 3.8 million civilian casualties! Does this justify the use of nuclear weapons because the japanese bombed a military base? It's all bullshit this justification of using the bomb to end the war.

It was a political message. Shame a few hundred thousand people had to die for it. But what else is new.


edit-
figures can differ depending on the source. Here is another one:
http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob62.html

 

no, the shame is we didn't have 10 bombs

 

On the warning and ultimatum for the second bomb.

Clearly the first bomb had been enough.



Why didn't the japanese want to surrender? It was because of the uncertainty of what would happen to the emporer. A deity in japanese eyes. That's all. One little compromise would have been enough to end the war months earlier. Saving many of your precious american heroes.

 

yes the japanese can kill 3000 of our young men with no provocation whatsoever and sent diplomats over here to stall for time so they can
then we are supposed to let them make demands as to their surrender???

you have it wrong spurious

 

I don't really know what you are after. You want to discuss your personal opinion on how big american balls are? Or are we discussing history, motives, background.

I'm not really interested in your platitudes.

goodbye discussion.

 

this has nothing to do with balls

frankly the discussion is moot because the perpetraters are not here to defend themselves or their position