Date: 6/15/2004 9:37:00 AM
From Authorid: 10754
Justified, no. The bomb was dropped not as a test, but as a statement. " Look, we have this big bomb, but we're not gonna use it yet " doesn't strike quite a stand as simply dropping the sucker does.  |
Date: 6/15/2004 9:42:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 47296
If you read "The Nuclear Files", you will find it was dropped in order to test it's effectiveness in a combat situation. It was a political situation. had it not been used though, there would have been over 1 million American casualities, as well as the loss of almost every American carrier in our fleet. I beleieve there was jusitifcation afte the fact.  |
Date: 6/15/2004 9:43:00 AM
From Authorid: 53284
This was war. War is all about killing people and destroying the capacity of the enemy to continue making war. Perhaps by using the atomic bombs, many lives were actually spared. Think how many lives would have been lost had the invasion plan been followed.  |
Date: 6/15/2004 9:44:00 AM
From Authorid: 27534
For the situation of the time....yes it was justified....it was to prevent a horrific invasion of Japan to have that government submit to surrender and cease hostilities. It was an attempt to save lives of allied troops who would have to do a conventional invasion and to save lives of the defenders.  |
Date: 6/15/2004 9:47:00 AM
From Authorid: 13974
I gotta go with TS on this one.  |
|
Date: 6/15/2004 9:51:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 47296
At Okinawa, 32 ships were lost to kamikazes, and over 400 were damaged. This was using far less suicide planes that the Japanese planned to use in defending their home. The casuality estimates given by MacArthur were given without knowledge of the planned Japanese defenses, which were drastically underestimated. |
|
Date: 6/15/2004 9:52:00 AM
From Authorid: 13974
My uncle was part of a recon crew that had to go and examine the devestation. It was still hot and smoking. |
|
Date: 6/15/2004 9:59:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 47296
Phy, I saw an aerial recon photo of Hiroshima before the bombing, and an aerial photo of the aftermath. There was little to tell they were the same city. I believe the effect surprised even the powers that were at that time. |
Date: 6/15/2004 1:01:00 PM
From Authorid: 13119
I think that it was totally justified and the loss of civilian life was one side affect of it. Many more Americans were saved because of it.  |
Date: 6/15/2004 4:12:00 PM
From Authorid: 48812
They bombed us, we nuked them. Put any label on it that anyone wants, but it was revenge. We did what we had to do. If we hadn't done this, then they (and Germany, and whoever else had beef with us and the Allies at the time) would have just assumed we were weak, and USA would be one big target range. So yeah, i think it was justified   |
|
Date: 6/15/2004 4:37:00 PM
From Authorid: 13974
Why would they have assumed we were weak if we had not dropped a nuclear weapon? |
|
Date: 6/15/2004 8:05:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 47296
Seeing as how the bomb was dropped at the end of the war, I do not believe anyone would have thought us weak. It was known by many countries involved in the war that we had achieved the capability of atomic weapons. The use of the bomb was not to show that we had it, since those were the only two we had at the time. It was to see what the effect of such weapons would be in actual use. It was felt at the time that their use may bring a quick end to the war, but that was just a gamble. Once again, if Japan had known that we only had the two weapons at the time, they may not have surrendered, but forced us to invade. |
Date: 6/16/2004 2:37:00 PM
From Authorid: 43807
Read "Black Rain by Masuji IBUSE. This novel based on eye witness accounts and journals, will make you view the atomic bomb in a total diffrent way, and you will never be the same again.  |
|
Date: 6/16/2004 2:44:00 PM
From Authorid: 43807
The bombing was a Necessary evil. Has a result of the devistation and the radiation poisoning that was the consiquence of the bomb. The world learned why it was important to avoid an atomic war. Sadly most people don't learn from history, so we our doomed to repeat it. So kids my advice to you is to learn your history. |
Date: 6/17/2004 8:46:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
There is no such thing as a "Necessary Evil". in my opinion. Evil is evil and genocide is genocide whether it comes in the form of an atomic bomb, or gass chambers. The greatest tragedy of war is that it reduces people to talking about human lives in terms of mathematics.  |
|
Date: 6/17/2004 8:22:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 47296
Dark Phoenix, when given the choice of destroying 1 million of the enemy and ending the war, or losing 1 million of your own with no guarantee of ending the war, then it does become a necessary evil. The greatest tragedy of war is not as you say, but that good people have to die, and I have known some of those good people. |
Date: 6/17/2004 9:04:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
Most of you have military experience that I don't have, but Jay has a point, we can fight here on our land, WHICH we will, given a show of weakness or we fight on "their land". This current war, it may be sold to the US as a War on Terror, but I believe it is about oil, let's agree that we will pay 5.00 per gallon to produce our own oil and triple our air flights? If we pay the price, we have no need to stabilize the Middle East and THAT is what we are doing IMO, so if Americans are justified in ANY war, as Wild Bob said, "War is about reducing the capacity of the enemy to continue making war. As for considering those lost, my mother's Aunt never got over losing her first husband in that War, he was burned while living as torture and it was documented. Atrocities are well remembered on these American shores. Children were told then so they would not forget the loss of life and we grew up without being trauma ridden, simply knowing, we do have enemies in the world. And that is why we have a military, why we use the effective means of knowledge, and power to keep fight war mongers on THEIR land and not ours. BUT, I'm not debating any military experts, these are just personal thoughts.  |
Date: 6/18/2004 7:55:00 PM
From Authorid: 54987
No I can never accept that it was right to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Never! In my view it was wrong! Morally wrong. People say that by doing so it saved many American lives. I don't believe that was so. Maybe they wanted to test the bombs and what better way than to use the Japanese? Many human lives were lost and many lives destroyed. It was wrong and the men that did it and the men that ordered it are hailed as heroes. It was a shameful act of murder.  |
|
Date: 6/19/2004 6:31:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 47296
Just some food for thought. If America had not dropped the bomb, and was forced to invade, then there would have indeed been casualities of at least one million, and possibly higher. That means that at least one million fathers and potential fathers would have never returned home. How many of us would not be here today if our father or grandfather was one of those million. |
|
Date: 6/19/2004 9:22:00 AM
From Authorid: 54987
But you can say that about any tragedy WS. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagazaki was a deliberate act aimed towards a mainly civilian population - not military, but women, children, old men, disabled ... people who we don't give a toss about. Apply 'what ifs' to them. No, it was barbaric. And it's no excuse saying how they treated our pows. We really paid them back for that didn't we? What they did to our pows was also barbaric, but these were soldiers. |
|
Date: 6/19/2004 10:10:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 47296
Koolade, if you look at the targeting data for both targets, you will find that both were indeed military targets, and that they were focal points for the troops being mustered to defend the home islands. Yes, a large number of the civilian population was injured or killed, but the targets were selected for their military value. On the other hand, many of the targets picked by the Japanese in China, Manchuria, and the South Pacific were not picked solely for their military value, but for teh impact they would have on the civilian population and the government. Germany also was guitly of the same thing, with their indiscriminate bombing of London and other major cities. We, nor our allies, insitututed the tactic of targeting civilians, especially in bombing campaigns. That was done by the enemy. The Allies only responded in kind to acts of terror comitted against civilians. Maybe if you had the opportunity to talk to a POW held in Japan you could better understand why some things were necessary. We did not start the war, and to be honest, many Americans did not want us involved in the war. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor though, in the manner they did without a formal declaration of war, they opened the Pandora's Box. The Japanese said themselves after the bombing they were afraid they had awakened a sleeping giant, and indeed they had. War is Hell, and that it is the only way to put it. When total war is declared, and that was the only type of war that Japan understood, then there are going to be casualities, including among civilians. Do not think for one minute that many of those civilians who were killed would have hesitated to pick up a weapon and kill Americans if an invasion had taken place. In fact, the final line of defense was the civilian population, some of who had been armed with single shot weapons, and mines or grenades that they were to use in suicide attacks. The code that many of the Japanese lived by at that time is far different from anything we know here. To those people, the Emperor and country came before all else, and they would die to preserve both. |
|
Date: 6/20/2004 5:34:00 AM
From Authorid: 54987
Listen.. I'm not saying anybody was right here. I'm saying that to deliberately bomb civilian targets is wrong, wrong, wrong. They wanted an early end to the war. Everyone was celebrating in Europe and the US were still slugging away. It that was done today it would be even more outrageous and we would be condemned more than we are now. The military were in a slow and ponderous battle that threatened to go on and on. Like Vietnam in a way. Of course Germany was wrong... everyone is wrong who deliberately targets civilians. |
|
Date: 6/20/2004 8:18:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 47296
Koolade, at Okinawa, 432 ships were lost or damaged. The ground fighting there was some of the most intense of the war, and only a preview of what would have been faced invading the home islands. The defense plan for Japan would have made it possible to sink or damage at least half the Allied Fleet, and every Allied aircraft carrier in the area. Landing craft full of troops, if the made it that far, were to be targeted by mini-subs, explosive laden fast boats, and suicide swimmers. It is hard for most people to fathom the losses that would have occcured unless they have studied warfare. It is easy for people today to judge the actions of those who fought then. Of course, the people then did not judge the actions near as harshly, since they were the ones who had just gone through so many years of war on such a vast scale. There is no comparison between WWII and Vietnam. WWII was a global war, that effected the entire world in some way, either directly or indirectly. If one looks at the total number of people killed or wounded because of the war, the numbers are mind boggling. The deaths at Hiroshima and Nagasaki are an extremely small percentage of the entire toll. |
|
Date: 6/20/2004 3:54:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
Two spirit, from a japanese point of view, the people that died because of the bombs were good people. Wars will continue until people start thinking of themselves as human, before american or japanese or whatever. |
|
Date: 6/20/2004 6:57:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 47296
DP, indeed they were good people. I will not argue that fact with anyone. In every war, there are good people who are only doing what they believe to be right. What is right for one, may not be right for another. There have been reunions of troops from WWII that were on opposing sides during the war. There is no hard feelings or harsh sentiments among them, because they each know they were doing that was ordered of them, and what someone higher than them deemed necessary. As a veteran, I have been in the same circumstances. |
|
Date: 6/21/2004 11:03:00 AM
From Authorid: 54987
I was replying to your post, not as a strategic military expert or political expert, but as a human being. I'm afraid I was looking at it from a position higher than than of both. All killing is wrong in my view ... by all sides. You can give me all the numbers you want but it cannot change my attitude that it is wrong. This is not the same as nessecity. It may be necessary to save one's life or family when it is threatened . But it is still killing and we have to pay for it in the end. You didn't ask whether it was morally right or wrong, so you were right in your replies to me regarding the military viewpoint. I should have read the post again. |
|
Date: 6/21/2004 5:50:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 47296
Koolade, even though I am a veteran, I do not necessarily believe in killing. The taking of a life in war is one of those things where you have to understand that it is your life or the life of a friend, or their life. Personally, war should be outlawed, but that say may be a long time coming. Until then, there will be wars, and people will die, no matter how unjust it all may be. |
