How do you feel about the use of the Atomic bomb in 1945?

[Jesse66126 4]

The facts:

 

• 
   
  
• Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor which triggered the US's involvement in World War II. Body count: approx. 2,400.
   
  
• During the final part of the war against Japan,it was estimated that over 1,000,000 allied troops would be killed in an attack on Japan.
  It was President Truman's desire to avert this by using the A-Bomb.
   
  
• The total body count from the atomic bombings in Nagasaki and Hiroshima was approx. 220,000.
   
  
• It takes over 60 years for the radiation to dissipate in an area destroyed by an A-Bomb. The water in Nagasaki and Hiroshima is still radioactive.
   
  
• "Do to others as you would have them do to you." Luke 6:31 NIV Bible. A widely known and accepted principle even by those who've never picked up a Bible.
  

[Broken Messiah 20]

Even though I will always support the military, I will say that we(USA) used excessive force.

[Enigma 10]

They knew of the bomb's power, but they didn't know how bad its effects of it would be in live combat and its long term effects

It was Wartime and the Atomic Bomb was a weapon, that was used in order to attain victory

 

Weapons are tools used to kill people, air raids or mass Calvary attacks could achieve the same results, maybe

but this ended the war instantaneously with the least loss of human life

 

Sure there is no justification for it, but the same could be said for War, which if it didn't break out, such a weapon would never be considered for use

 

Nuke's are weapons that are so dangerous that countries don't actually use them, they just threaten with them, they are so powerful they can wipe out both sides...

 

The U.S government warned Japan about it and they didn't understand, the nukes were simply warning shots and the casualties were unfortunately caught up in the conflict

 

In fact I think the old Japanese Government is also responsible for the A Bomb's use as well, if they had given up once they had been informed of the threat than those civilians wouldn't have been harmed. The A Bomb was used to force Japan's hand and give up the war

 

It was probably the best possible decision, not the most moral but the most efficient,

you can't equate human life but since everyone is equal you want to save as much as you can while loosing as little as you can

 

The Modern Japan is better for it and is an Ally of the U.S and a World Power, So I'd rather have this Japan than a Feudalistic/Japanese Empire thing go in around

[rgangsta 43]

Haha! This is an easy one. I had to write a 5 paragraph essay on this last year for my History test.

The U.S. had to use the Atomic bomb because the Japanese were potential threats. The Japanese were taught never to give up so if they were given a chance, they might attack again which would put a lot of American lives at risk.

I still love the Japanese. :biggrin_002:

[Marked 197]

I don't know how I feel about topics on war since governments have no problem feeding their citizens bulls**t.

 

 

If the US couldn't win without the bomb, then I think it was necessary. Otherwise not.

[Siverix 4]

any bombing is a bad discision a-bomb or not. the only thing what weapons of mass destruction are good for cutting on same excess population (offcourse no one is gonna tell what at school). also why does america have to be in pretty much any war since WWII?

[Marked 197]

Wars are about money. Without offending any country all I can say is the world sucks, it really does.

[Siverix 4]

i agree with you marked theres no better way to launder money than start a war in some small country like lets say Cambodia :devil:

[Polraudio 122]

They mainly did it to prove the power they had so other countries would be scared to try anything against them.

Without it they would have lost.

So yea without it i dont think we would have won.

[Siverix 4]

and look how what turned out occupying a country and calling it Iraqi freedom kinda destroys the purpose doesn't it? :king:

[Kiriashi 117]

They knew of the bomb's power, but they didn't know how bad its effects of it would be in live combat and its long term effects

It was Wartime and the Atomic Bomb was a weapon, that was used in order to attain victory

 

Weapons are tools used to kill people, air raids or mass Calvary attacks could achieve the same results, maybe

but this ended the war instantaneously with the least loss of human life

 

Sure there is no justification for it, but the same could be said for War, which if it didn't break out, such a weapon would never be considered for use

 

Nuke's are weapons that are so dangerous that countries don't actually use them, they just threaten with them, they are so powerful they can wipe out both sides...

 

The U.S government warned Japan about it and they didn't understand, the nukes were simply warning shots and the casualties were unfortunately caught up in the conflict

 

In fact I think the old Japanese Government is also responsible for the A Bomb's use as well, if they had given up once they had been informed of the threat than those civilians wouldn't have been harmed. The A Bomb was used to force Japan's hand and give up the war

 

It was probably the best possible decision, not the most moral but the most efficient,

you can't equate human life but since everyone is equal you want to save as much as you can while loosing as little as you can

 

The Modern Japan is better for it and is an Ally of the U.S and a World Power, So I'd rather have this Japan than a Feudalistic/Japanese Empire thing go in around

 

This post echoes my opinion. ^

 

The bomb was necessary at that time. Japan attacked us, we had no choice but to fight back, and this was the only thing we could do to get them to STFU.

 

I'm pretty sure the radiation sickness was unknown at the time.

 

any bombing is a bad discision a-bomb or not. the only thing what weapons of mass destruction are good for cutting on same excess population (offcourse no one is gonna tell what at school). also why does america have to be in pretty much any war since WWII?

 

 

Siverix, of course war isn't a good thing. But when 2000+ people are killed because of an opposing country, you don't just sit there and do nothing because war is a bad thing. We had to fight back. America ain't France.

Wars are about money. Without offending any country all I can say is the world sucks, it really does.

 

 

Marked, if Japan bombed upper New Zealand, do you think that no one should intervene? Would it be all about money for New Zealand to attack Japan?

[Marked 197]

No because NZ does not need to go to war for money. No one will EVER bomb NZ apart from the face we're allies with the US and England and the rest (because they are currently involved in a war).

 

Siverix, of course war isn't a good thing. But when 2000+ people are killed because of an opposing country, you don't just sit there and do nothing because war is a bad thing. We had to fight back. America ain't France.

Of course the US were to fight back. Pearl Harbor made the US people want the war.

[Kiriashi 117]

No because NZ does not need to go to war for money.

 

.. What? xD

 

I'm saying if you got bombed, do you or do you not think you should intervene. You being kiwiland.

[Marked 197]

So if NZ were getting bombed, would I want to stop it? Or retaliate? I'm going to say yes to both. But not sure how that applies since you're US not japan. (I have a feeling thats also not what you're talking about)

[Leon 55]

You know, I will have to say, after the 60-70 firebombings that did little, and the refusal of the Potsdam Declaration, it is actually a sound military tactic to pull out the 'big-guns' if it means bringing peace.

 

I mean, when you look at the grand scheme of things, the Japanese brought in 2400 casualties with Pearl Harbor; they outlasted the Germans, they trained their soldiers to never quit. The war had already brought on roughly 65 million war-related deaths, give or take 10 million. Yes, millions; and only 22-25 million of those being soldiers. Had Nagasaki and Hiroshima not been bombed, the totals could have been drastically increased. In the bigger picture, to me, I see 220,000 deaths more appropriate than if the war continued, and that factor be multiplied greatly.