|
|
|
|
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| |||||||||||||||
Date: 4/17/2002 8:28:00 PM
From Authorid: 45630
If America didn't do that then how many people would have been killed in general warfare in the years to come. Also the bombing of Hiroshima effectively ended the whole war to a certain extent so you have to think about how many lives it saved world wide.  |
Date: 4/17/2002 8:29:00 PM
From Authorid: 15070
Yes, it put an end to World War II.It was a necessary evil.  |
Date: 4/17/2002 8:29:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 40543
I agree with you here but im gonna play devils advocate just for the sake of it. Can you justify killing people (women and children) for the sake of servicemen?  |
Date: 4/17/2002 8:29:00 PM
From Authorid: 47166
The agonizing death of thousands of innocent civilians? And WE'RE fighting terrorists? I'm sorry, I just loathe the U.S.'s hypocricy. No, it was far from necessary to butcher the innocents in an attack as blatantly hostile and ruthless as the September 11th attacks. -Clukinvar  |
|
Date: 4/17/2002 8:31:00 PM
From Authorid: 47166
To KurtVedder- the war was over, Japan was the only country still fighting when we bombed them. Germany had signed an armistis days before the bombing. -Clukinvar |
Date: 4/17/2002 8:31:00 PM
From Authorid: 47296
Axl, you have already answered with part of my answer. In fact, even more Japanese would have died if we had invaded. After the war ended, it was found that the Japanese had numerous kamikaze boats that were to be used during the invasion. These small, fast boats, loaded with explosives, were to be directed toward landing craft approaching the beaches. Also, the Japanese had already begun arming those left in the country for the upcoming invasion. Unknown to some, both of the cities targeted were also military targets. If memory serves me, Nagasaki was a major staging base for Japanese forces preparing for the American invasion. As you stated, the loss to Americans would have been greater. The resultant loss to the Japanese would have been far worse than what these two bombs did.  |
|
Date: 4/17/2002 8:33:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 40543
But dont you think it would of been more effective if we just demonstrated our power we had? Dropping it someplace where it didnt cost lives but showed the Japanese what kind of power we had? Or even yet just dropped the one on Hiroshima and stopped it there? |
|
Date: 4/17/2002 8:34:00 PM
From Authorid: 45630
Clukinvar the war was not over. Their was a temporary cease fire. I'm sure you've seen how good they have been over the last few years. |
|
Date: 4/17/2002 8:34:00 PM
From Authorid: 47166
I did not know that, warrior spirit, thanks for the info. -Clukinvar |
|
Date: 4/17/2002 8:36:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 40543
thanks warrior spirit, ill include that in my paper. |
Date: 4/17/2002 8:44:00 PM
From Authorid: 47699
I regret that so many innocent lives were lost but it was dire times and drastic situations require drastic measures. I can't really see how we had much choice in the matter. We just did what had to be done and it got results.  |
Date: 4/17/2002 8:46:00 PM
From Authorid: 51979
Yes, it was right and very neccesary. The day they attacked pearl harbor, during peace talks mind you, was the day that they deserved what they got. The civilians cheered as they killed thousands of us, they deserved what they got. It was just as bad as bieng terrorists, but when they attacked Pearl Harbor, they got USA in full force. In all our glory we struck back, and it was war, any tactic is fair play. As long as you declare war...not like those spineless japs....no offence to the japanese people now...I am talking about the people who attacked us...  |
|
Date: 4/17/2002 8:48:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 40543
but do you really feel that the loss of over 100,000 lives in 3 days was the answer? im not saying that it should of been ruled out but like i said it would of been alot easier demonstrating what we had rather than go into it full force |
|
Date: 4/17/2002 8:50:00 PM
From Authorid: 51979
Did they demonstrate what they had efore they attacked? Did they declare war? I think if we showed our muslces...they would have defended from that attack in any way possible. They wanted there oil back...and they didn't care what they had to do to get it. |
|
Date: 4/17/2002 8:52:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 40543
yes but they didnt attack civilians. And they didnt do it twice nor at that magnitude. |
|
Date: 4/17/2002 8:53:00 PM
From Authorid: 45630
But Axl they did attack civialians in china as well as Darwin Australia. In Australia we intercepted a japanese submarine in Sydney Harbour. |
Date: 4/17/2002 8:54:00 PM
From Authorid: 50435
The use of the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a true display of power. But that's all. It was totally unnecessary and definitely uncalled for. I've gone through the gutter with people who say it was the defining point that ended the war and that I have no idea what I'm talking about. Fair enough, everyone is entitled to an opinion or two. But the war was already over minus the dotting of the i's and the crossing of the t's. With little left in both resources and in spirit the Japanese didn't have a prayer, even without the use of the bombs. And supposing that they made a significant retaliation against the Americans the situation in the European theatre was such that reinforcements and supplies were available or at least could be arranged. So no, the use of the bombs was more for terrorist intent than for anything else. It wasn't just for Japan, but as a show of strength for the Russians. I realize that I'll be taking flak for this stance, but hey, think about it. Next time you see a documentary on Hiroshima or Nagasaki just take a look at the mutilated faces and bodies of the survivors. Then ask yourself if it was really worth it. Take care...Gallytuck.  |
|
Date: 4/17/2002 8:55:00 PM
From Authorid: 15070
Axel Rose, this is an excellent point. And a very difficult debate. I know the Imperial Army needed to be stopped once & for all. But the death of innocents is a terrible,terrible thing.So, I mast say, yeah, we needed to do it, but "forgive us" |
|
Date: 4/17/2002 8:55:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 40543
im not saying that they didnt attack civilians its just we seem to hold a double standard. We saw what was happening to Europe and our allies, France and England, but didnt try and help them in a good way. Its not until we suffered an attack did we decide to fight |
|
Date: 4/17/2002 8:56:00 PM
From Authorid: 51979
They still killed nurses, fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters....did you think that the relatives felt it was justified because they were in the military? WE were in peace talks for gods sake! |
|
Date: 4/17/2002 8:57:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 40543
you're right Gallytuck, it was also to demonstrate to the Soviet Union the power we had, which in my opinion was a mistake, but thats another debate. But i will say i believe Japan did have a prayer. They may not of won but it would of costed us a lot. |
Date: 4/17/2002 8:57:00 PM
From Authorid: 17525
War is man's lowest nature. It's done, it's over, there's no turning back no matter what we feel about it. Let's just hope we've learned from the experience. Our weapons today are HUNDREDS of times more powerful than those used on Japan. That's too scary for me to think about.  |
|
Date: 4/17/2002 8:58:00 PM
From Authorid: 45630
But don't you think that it is good that your country wasn't into fighting other peoples fights. It meant that America was at full strength when Japan did attack. Also remember that Wall street crash of 1929 had just recently occured. Not many countries could afford to get involved in that sort of big scale. |
|
Date: 4/17/2002 8:58:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 40543
actually 51979 peace talks were failing and the ambassadors to Japan were returning home at about the time of the attacks. There are reports that the government knew there would be an attack its just it was more of a question when was it gonna happen. |
|
Date: 4/17/2002 8:58:00 PM
From Authorid: 51979
We didn't feel the need to have our men die in a war that was not ours...it wasn't our fight to fight so why go and get you men killed for it? Until they attacked us we had no reason to go and waste our men for no real cause. |
Date: 4/17/2002 9:01:00 PM
From Authorid: 36803
I'm pretty indifferent on the whole topic, but I do want to add..that one of the reasons the US bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima was because they were looking for "unconditional surrender". The japanese had already said they would sign an armistice if they could keep their emperor, but the US wanted NO conditions on the surrender of the Japanese so they bombed them. But what's funny, is in the end...the US DID agree to let Japan keep it's emperor. -avalonelle  |
|
Date: 4/17/2002 9:01:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 40543
i think it was more of a question of what the people thought. We wanted to be more isolationist and that really got us caught up with ourselves when our oldest ally and our mother country were being attacked ruthlessly. Surely they saw that a war would of brought significant economic gains. |
|
Date: 4/17/2002 9:02:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 40543
There was a real cause. Agression throughout Europe. Hitlers Third Reich or Third Empire as it was called. All signs of imperilism and wanting total domination. When the Axis broke the non-aggression pact with Russian that should of clued us in that they needed to be stopped. |
|
Date: 4/17/2002 9:03:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 40543
Good point avalonelle |
|
Date: 4/17/2002 9:04:00 PM
From Authorid: 45630
But you do need a signifigant amount of amoury to fight a war. And to get that you need money. The western world was slow to war because they thought that WW1 was the war to end all wars. Little did they know. |
|
Date: 4/17/2002 9:05:00 PM
From Authorid: 45630
Yes there was a cause but not a big enough cause that affected the states. |
|
Date: 4/17/2002 9:05:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 40543
We must of had enough money because we did do a lot of lending to the allies in the early part of the war. I'm not sure if it was monetary but it was something to the effect of equipment. |
|
Date: 4/17/2002 9:05:00 PM
From Authorid: 51979
I don't think the USA backed Roosavelt to go into war...until they hurt us I don't think we really wanted anything to do with the war. But your right, we shoudla backed our allies. |
|
Date: 4/17/2002 9:06:00 PM
From Authorid: 51979
I don't think the USA backed Roosavelt to go into war...until they hurt us I don't think we really wanted anything to do with the war. But your right, we shoudla backed our allies. |
|
Date: 4/17/2002 9:06:00 PM
From Authorid: 50435
As for Pearl Harbor...like they didn't see it comin'. Carriers and that many planes create only a wee blip on the radar screen. LOL. Sure, maybe they didn't think they would pull something like that. I'll give ya that. But the Japanese sided with the Germans. And what was the purpose of having Pearl Harbor as a base? Lack of coastline on the continent? I don't think so. Wouldn't it make sense that they would monitor and patrol the area? How could you miss something so big? Anyhoo, take care...Gallytuck. |
|
Date: 4/17/2002 9:06:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 40543
And unfortunately the US is guilty of sometimes putting ourselves above the right cause. Just because it didnt effect us didnt make it right. |
|
Date: 4/17/2002 9:06:00 PM
From Authorid: 45630
You didn't do that much lending coz you were still trying to get money back from the loan you gave to Germany so they could pay back their reparations as a part of the Treaty of Versailles. |
|
Date: 4/17/2002 9:07:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 40543
exactly but wasnt it Roosevelt that said whats popular isnt always right and whats right isnt always popular? or who was that? lol |
|
Date: 4/17/2002 9:08:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 40543
And we really should be to blame for the start of World War 2. We made our allies pay us back for the lending back in the first world war and in order for them to get that kind of money it forced them to get it from Germany as reperations. That further embarressed the Germans and just planted the seeds for some facist to come to power. |
|
Date: 4/17/2002 9:09:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 40543
Well we shouldnt be completely blamed but a portion of it should be on us. |
|
Date: 4/17/2002 9:10:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 40543
Gallytuck i think Pearl Harbor was used because of its location. It was close to the eastern hemisphere countries and it was easier to keep an eye on them. Or so it was supposed to be like that. |
Date: 4/17/2002 9:10:00 PM
From Authorid: 21867
...war ain't pretty...thats why its called war and not peace...  |
|
Date: 4/17/2002 9:11:00 PM
From Authorid: 45630
But it was unknown. People at that time had no idea that this would be the age of facists. Countries have been doing this for centuries and it hadn't caused anything remotly close to this. |
|
Date: 4/17/2002 9:13:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 40543
but when Hitler invaded Poland and Russia and France and Czechaslovokia and on and on that should of been a pretty good indication that something was up |
|
Date: 4/17/2002 9:16:00 PM
From Authorid: 45630
But when allies were drawing up the treaty of versailles how were they to guess that this would have happened. |
|
Date: 4/17/2002 9:17:00 PM
From Authorid: 45630
Also the treaty would have been worse if Woodrow Wilson hadn't stepped in. I mean there was going to be a real digging into Germany's land there. |
|
Date: 4/17/2002 9:18:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 40543
well they werent, its just it should of been that they shouldnt of went to the Germans for the money when it was over. You could even trace this back as far as the United States failure to enter the League of Nations. |
|
Date: 4/17/2002 9:19:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 40543
It almost would of been better if it had been divided up land wise. It may of stopped his rise to power and made that area more stable under a different government. Of course im just speculating, theres no proof that could of been good. |
Date: 4/17/2002 9:19:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
Rauquie did a post a while back that had some good comments and different opinions: http://www.unsolvedmysteries.com/usm213390.html  |
|
Date: 4/17/2002 9:20:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 40543
Thanks Shadow Ghost |
|
Date: 4/17/2002 9:22:00 PM
From Authorid: 45630
The league of Nations was a weak pathetic joke. It really did nothing. |
|
Date: 4/17/2002 9:25:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 40543
The league of nations though was really what the United Nations is today. If it had gotten the support then as it did after WWII it might of succeeded. |
|
Date: 4/17/2002 9:27:00 PM
From Authorid: 49689
Ok ask yourself this question..... Was it right for the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor????? They took innocent lives on our soil... So why not reciprocate?? *Pyriel*  |
|
Date: 4/17/2002 9:28:00 PM
From Authorid: 49689
One more thing..... When they bombed Pearl Harbor, they also took innocent civilian lives..... *Pyriel* |
|
Date: 4/17/2002 9:30:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 40543
Was it right no. But we did something that changed the history of warfare forever. And im not saying that if we didnt drop the bomb that we could of stopped the Cold War or even the spread of nuclear secrets. But what we did was an atomic attack that changed so many different things. Nuclear fallout was found in Sweeden from the power plant meltdown in Ukraine, whats it called? Chyrnoble? So it effected a lot of things. Not just lives then but now. |
|
Date: 4/17/2002 9:30:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 40543
not on the scale we did. We ended 80,000 lives in about 2 seconds. |
|
Date: 4/17/2002 9:43:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 40543
Once again, i was playing Devil's Advocate here and just trying to question both sides. Thanks for all of your input and ill be sure to include it in my paper. |
| Date: 4/18/2002 12:37:00 AM From Authorid: 12411 I don't think ANY one should be fighting ANY war for ANY reason in ANY place. After all, it's not like we other places or planets to live on once people decide they messed the earth up too badly. JJ |
|
Date: 4/18/2002 6:43:00 AM
From Authorid: 51979
War doesn't determine who is right...it determines whos left. We have never entered an unprovoked war JJ, we merely defend ourselves...and to that we must enter a war. We will not keep ourselves safe without overwhelming the evil. So saying that there should be peace is right and good...but it just isn't possible.-VitalDeath |
|
Date: 4/18/2002 6:45:00 AM
From Authorid: 51979
War doesn't determine who is right...it determines whos left. We have never entered an unprovoked war JJ, we merely defend ourselves...and to that we must enter a war. We will not keep ourselves safe without overwhelming the evil. So saying that there should be peace is right and good...but it just isn't possible.-VitalDeath |
|
Date: 4/18/2002 6:45:00 AM
From Authorid: 51979
oops sorry, I didn't mean to reply that tiwce...but I accidentaly hit refresh... |
Date: 4/18/2002 7:31:00 AM
From Authorid: 51724
no i don't think so. why didn't they just bomb germany first and get rid of hitler and nazis?  |
Date: 4/18/2002 7:37:00 AM
From Authorid: 52956
Well, think about Pearl Harbor, they didn't mind killing innocent people then. We were just getting back at them for what they did to us.  |
Date: 4/18/2002 12:12:00 PM
From Authorid: 31275
I never understood why the us dropped two bombs instead of just dropping the first one and waiting for Japan to surrender??  |
|
Date: 4/18/2002 4:30:00 PM
From Authorid: 47296
One thing that was learned from POWs who survived the war in Japan, was that the military and Imperial government had already started stocking caves for an extended war on Japanese soil. One has to remember that many Japanese believed in and lived by the Bushido Code, or, the Code of the Warrior. Under that code, to surrender would be to lose face. Before they one would lose face, they would die in battle, or take their own life. This was instilled into the people in the military, and is one thing that made them such feirce foes. Most of the people involved in the development of nuclear weapons had no idea what the extent of damage would be if dropped on a city. When the first bomb fell, the whole world was shocked by the results. Some in the Imperial government started discussing peace, but there were still dissenters. The decision to use the second bomb also caused some dissention among members of the military and government. Most felt that the Japanese would push for a surrender with terms. Some though felt the only surrender should be unconditional. These are the people that pushed for the use of the second bomb. Eventually, they got heir wish, and the Japanese government agreed to surrender. Had we not used atomic weapons, even more cities would have been destroyed through the use of incediary bombs, and heavy convential bombing. As it was, the Japanese were left with the capability to start rebuilding. Actually, Japan fared better than Germany at war's end. One reason is that it was not necessary to invade Japan. We cannot say today honestly if it was right or wrong to use these weapons. Many of us did not live during that time, and do not understand the scope of the war. For those who were alive then, and especially for those fighting the war, the choice was the right one. |
Date: 4/18/2002 4:37:00 PM
From Authorid: 13119
Innocent people always get killed in wars, it was done and that is that. I agree to the bombings, I feel sad for the people that were there but that is war. As for the people that said they hate all wars and we shouldn't have wars, well, this is not utopia and if you didn't have the brave men and women to protect you and make tough decisions you would be anihilated. We don't always understand the logic used in military strategies but there is logic!  |
Date: 4/18/2002 5:13:00 PM
From Authorid: 25828
civilians get killed in any war.it was inevitable. they used everything they thought they needed to kill at Pearl Harbor. What we did was beat them at their own game of blood and war (as we will do every and any time in history)...yes, to end it that way, to show the world that it did not pay to be so sneaky and to even mess with america (after all, throughout history it is a matter of civilization taking over civilization and political system replacing political system..so don't think those kinds of idea and things can't happen). - yes, we ended it swiftly, we knew there would be no retaliation and it would without a doubt end the war - and if not, then they would have proven themselves complete idiots and been wiped off the face of the earth altogether. 8-)  |
Date: 4/18/2002 7:52:00 PM
From Authorid: 22080
im for it all is fair in love and war  |
Date: 4/18/2002 9:21:00 PM
From Authorid: 14407
This was the essay question on my History final my junior year. I got an A+. I have nothing but respect for the Japanese people and culure, but it simply was nessasary to end the war. A mainland invasion would have simply been disasterours on so many levels for both sides. Particularly due to the "Death before dishonor" tradition of warfare practiced by the Japanese. Plus, after the German surender a secret order was issued by what remained of the Nazi high command to a Kreigsmarine U-Bout in the Pacific to set course for Japan. However, it was captured by an allied naval patrol before it reached its destination. Aboard the vessel were officers from the Japanese Imperial navy. Its cargo was discoverd to be lead crates filled with Uranium-238 dust, the radio Isotope used to make nuclear weapons. Appearently the nazis had intended to arm the Japanese with one final "vengence weapon". The plan was most probably to use the uranium as a chemical weapon in a new balloon campaign on the American west coast. The effects of the bombs were truly horrific though. No people should ever have been subjected to that but, the war had to be ended.-Gandwere  |
Date: 4/18/2002 9:48:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
two bombs were dropped for a reason..one could have been called an accident..two was a warning  |
| Date: 4/25/2002 2:40:00 PM From Authorid: 51911 the hiroshima and nagasaki bombings ended the war, but it killed over a million civilians and soldiers in total (including radiation). Before the bombing, the United States made plans to invade Japan in autumn. They warned that it might cost over a million casualties. If that invasion wouldn't have worked, fighting would continue and thousands more would die. Even thought it was extremely harsh to use it on Japan, i think it was probably a good idea. |
Renasoft is the proud sponsor of the Unsolved Mystery Publications website.
See: www.rensoft.com Personal Site server, Power to build Personal Web Sites and Personal Web Pages
All stories are copyright protected and may not be reproduced in any form, except by specific written authorization
