Hiroshima: 60 years later

[GeneralMBison]

On this day in 1945, the United States dropped the Atomic Bomb to the city of Hiroshima in Japan, then days later Japan gave up to the US and World War 2 ended. Do you think that the US shouldn't have dropped the Atomic Bomb on Japan or or not at all? What do you think about this? For me they should have dropped it on Germany to wipe out the Nazis while US should have invaded Japan and catched Tokyo.

[seventy-one]

At 8/7/05 01:28 AM, GeneralMBison wrote: For me they should have dropped it on Germany to wipe out the Nazis while US should have invaded Japan and catched Tokyo.

An invasion would have cost millions of American and Japanese lives, children (boys and girls) were being trained to fight the Americans in the event of an invasion. The A-bombs while killing a lot of people with one blow probably saved lives, it forced the Japanese to surrender, preventing the USSR from invading and having a split Japan, one like East and West Berlin. Although many civilians died when the bombs dropped, they would have likely died fighting off an invasion. The blame is on the Japanese government who had the opportunity to prevent Hiroshima and then to prevent Nagasaki, but were too stubborn to save their people.

[TheShrike]

Fuck.

I hate it when this topic comes around, because there is no way to convince you fuckers who don't think the bomb was the right thing.

It was the right thing to do. It was the best course of action. AND IT HAPPENED WHEN THE A-BOMB WAS NEW AND WEAK.

Would you rather have had ten times as many people die from a much more potent bomb? That's what would have happened if we hadn't done it then. It would have had time to mature.

Do you realize how much more powerful the bombs we have now are? Do you care? They haven't been used since then because even the fucked up and ass-backwards politicos know that they're much worse than they've ever been.

[Jimsween]

I often here people claim that Japan wanted to surrender and was going to, and thier only condition was to keep the emporer in power. This is incorrect.

First off, it ignores the fact that the army attempted a coup even after the bombs had been dropped, and in the process they nearly killed the emporer. So it seems rather unlikely that they would have simply accepted a surrender.

Second, there was never a formal attempt at surrender, diplomats favored it, but it never happened.

And third, it was never directly stated that that was the only condition.

It was the right thing to do, if only because it made Stalin think twice about his next move.

[LazyDrunk]

At 8/7/05 01:28 AM, GeneralMBison wrote: What do you think about this?

I know the US did the right thing by dropping those bombs on Japan, no matter how much my teachers try to defend that it was unnecessary. But I've got a sinking feeling teachers for the next generation, as well as historians, are going to keep pressing and reporting to the general population that it was unnecessary and inhumane. Inhumane, of all things.

For me they should have dropped it on Germany to wipe out the Nazis while US should have invaded Japan and catched Tokyo.

Considering Germany had already surrended 3 months beforehand, I don't think it was even an option to nuke the Nazis.

Had the USSR not developed nuclear capabilities, and with that, MAD, I think we could've likely nuked them following our icy post-WWII relationship.

[Camarohusky]

At 8/7/05 01:56 AM, -LazyDrunk- wrote: I know the US did the right thing by dropping those bombs on Japan, no matter how much my teachers try to defend that it was unnecessary. But I've got a sinking feeling teachers for the next generation, as well as historians, are going to keep pressing and reporting to the general population that it was unnecessary and inhumane. Inhumane, of all things.

Actually that generation of historians has passed. The new prevailing thoughts are that it was a terrible thing, no doubt, but that it had its reasons, both good and bad, for being used.

I agree that the atomic bomb was a horrible incident with long lasting effects on the peoples of Hiroshima and Nakasaki, but the amount of people that died because of the two bombs together still doesn't amount to the total deatsh caused in two evenings earlier that year when Tokyo was firebombed...

[TheShrike]

At 8/7/05 02:16 AM, Camarohusky wrote: I agree that the atomic bomb was a horrible incident with long lasting effects on the peoples of Hiroshima and Nakasaki, but the amount of people that died because of the two bombs together still doesn't amount to the total deatsh caused in two evenings earlier that year when Tokyo was firebombed...

*CLAPS*

THANK YOU!

I try bringing that up, too. But no. It's all about the fucking bomb. FUCK THE FUCKING BOMB. It didn't even kill as many people as the japanese killed when they raided China. Or when we firebombed tokyo. Or when the Germans tried out ethinc cleansing.

The japanese surrendered because they did not want to have the same kind of firebombing. With nukes.

[capn-g]

At 8/7/05 01:45 AM, TheShrike wrote: It was the right thing to do. It was the best course of action. AND IT HAPPENED WHEN THE A-BOMB WAS NEW AND WEAK.

You mean 5 meagtons =/= 500 megatons? Imagine that....

I think the A-bomb falls between desperate gambit and necessary evil. On the one hand, if Japan had not surrendered, the war would have dragged on for years and the fact there was no third bomb to drop would have made the US seem impotent. On the other the actual bombs killed less people and destroyed less property that conventional bombing would have. Just compare post-war Berlin to post-war Kyoto, you almost can't compare them.

A friend of mine (who is half japanese) also believes all that radiation is the reason we have things like tentacle rape hentai today, so fans of that genre should be truely greatful!

[ReiperX]

As many have stated dropping the A Bomb was a horrible thing, but it was the lesser of the two evils.

More people would have died on both sides with an invasion, much more wide spread destruction too and would have taken longer for Japan to recover from the war. And as someone said before, a split Japan would have probally been a bad thing, possibly setting back our world's technology decades,

[GeneralMBison]

At 8/7/05 01:56 AM, -LazyDrunk- wrote: Had the USSR not developed nuclear capabilities, and with that, MAD, I think we could've likely nuked them following our icy post-WWII relationship.

If USSR had some nukes and threw them to Japan before the US, then they could have won the war and everything that has happened to the US since then, all that would go to USSR but with different plans of taking over the US instead of stopping the US. Some of you know this if you have played "Freedom Fighters". That game tells a different outcome of World War II. Good thing the US won by nuking Japan.

[Pluto-from-Below]

I wonder, have any of you seen the wounded, the burns, the swollen hands of the survivors of Hiroshima and nagasaki, has any of you thought of the effects of the radiation. There was a women who had millions of very smal pieces of glas in her body; it took years to get them all out. Of other people only a shadow has remained, literally. These people were civilians. I put this bombing under the capter genocide.

And now i want to copy a text from wikipedia , you should read it. Most important it says that japan was probably going to surrender soon and that Japan wasn't warned.

[seventy-one]

At 8/7/05 03:40 AM, GeneralMBison wrote:
If USSR had some nukes and threw them to Japan before the US.

It doesn't matter if the USSR had some nukes, if the US had waited to do a full scale invasion, then the USSR would invade from Japans weaker points, it would then become a race to Tokyo, and more than likely the USSR would have won that race, and if that happened, the cold war would be entirely different.

[Maus]

At 8/7/05 02:38 AM, capn_g wrote: A friend of mine (who is half japanese) also believes all that radiation is the reason we have things like tentacle rape hentai today, so fans of that genre should be truely greatful!

Your friend has never seen all of Hokusai's works, have they? I know everyone has seen the Mt. Fiji woodblocks he did, but W-H-O-A doggie, there is some primitive hentai in there too. One specifically deals with a sea creature. :o

The Bomb? A necessary evil. Meh.

[LazyDrunk]

At 8/7/05 03:49 AM, Pluto_from_Below wrote:
And now i want to copy a text from wikipedia , you should read it. Most important it says that japan was probably going to surrender soon and that Japan wasn't warned.

The Potsdam Proclamation. Try to find an unbiased source.

Also, some of Japan politicians wanted to surrender, but the people in power, military leaders and Hirohito, didn't.

It's like saying Iraq wanted to surrender when in fact just a few of Saddam's lesser employees knew they couldn't outlast an all-out assault.

[TurnipClock]

At 8/7/05 01:28 AM, GeneralMBison wrote: For me they should have dropped it on Germany to wipe out the Nazis while US should have invaded Japan and catched Tokyo.

do you realise that germany had already given an unconditional surrender

[TurnipClock]

At 8/7/05 01:53 AM, Jimsween wrote: It was the right thing to do, if only because it made Stalin think twice about his next move.

Also the non-soviet allies were scared shitless Stalin would attack them (his massive armies were already deployed to mid europe so it wouldnt be hard to push further).

At 8/7/05 02:26 AM, TheShrike wrote: I try bringing that up, too. But no. It's all about the fucking bomb. FUCK THE FUCKING BOMB. It didn't even kill as many people as the japanese killed when they raided China. Or when we firebombed tokyo. Or when the Germans tried out ethinc cleansing.

Yeah, im pretty sure both nukes killed less then the ammount killed by the japs in nanjing.

[GeneralMBison]

I forgot what day and the city name when did they dropped the second nuke?

[Jimsween]

At 8/7/05 03:49 AM, Pluto_from_Below wrote: And now i want to copy a text from wikipedia , you should read it. Most important it says that japan was probably going to surrender soon and that Japan wasn't warned.

Actually, it says the exact opposite of that. In the end it says leaflets were dropped and through it mentions that surrender was unlikely.

And at that, your quoting the part of the article in which it lists the opinions of certain groups, not what the facts are.

Japan would not have surrendered, the army would not let it happen. Not without one last fight. With the bombing, they realized they were never going to get a last fight, that the US was just going to keep dropping bombs.

[Jimsween]

At 8/7/05 04:36 AM, TurnipClock wrote: Also the non-soviet allies were scared shitless Stalin would attack them (his massive armies were already deployed to mid europe so it wouldnt be hard to push further).

Most definately. Historians tend to agree that Stalin was considering finishing off Europe and Asia, but they can't agree on what made him decide not to.

Stalin saw an oppourtunity, the Soviet Union was completely mobilized, industries had been moved to safer areas, production capacity was at all time highs. The major problem with mobilization is the damage done while starting it up, not while running it. And since it was already started up why not invade Europe while you have the chance.

[ReiperX]

At 8/7/05 05:06 AM, wan_tan_soup14 wrote: now i feel bad about my testicle thread.

As you should be. Some people may be pondering cutting yours off and dragging it down the street attached to a string.

[KjartanT]

Spesialists says that Japanies had allready lost the war when Americans Bloved up Hiroshima so NO

[WebmasterUS]

We were not warned about Pearl harbor. So, basically, they were not warned about Hiroshima, or Nagasaki. It had to be done to save more lives, on both sides.
It is sad that Bombs like this were even created, but sometimes, we make decisions, we know we may regret later on, to put a stop to things in a quick manner.
I truly hope we never have to use anything we have now, on a higher scale.
I have a friend in the military, and he won't say exactly what, but he said if we use some of the bombs we have now, their would not be a few countries left. He said 1945 would have looked liked a trial run.

[mythdragon]

Droping bomb was unnecessary show of power. Beside that wasnt military target at all.
And saying that without droping bomb more people woud lose lifes, you can also say that stoping hitler before he started war or make intervention when he atacked Poland coud save 50 milions of lifes. Plus Stalin coud get owned and ther was no clod war crisis or eastern block :/

[IllustriousPotentate]

I've read a couple of columns and excerpts on the memorial service there, and it's sad how it is treated today. Every year, it becomes more and more like Memorial Day here, just a day to goof off and have fun without acknowledging the events of that day. In fact, many survivors of the bomb prefer not to participate in the public ceremonies, staying in their homes to hold private ones.

However, Japan no longer needs to learn a lesson from the bomb--it already has. It's become one of the most peace-loving nations on earth.

[net-blob]

At 8/7/05 09:30 AM, -Illustrious- wrote:

However, Japan no longer needs to learn a lesson from the bomb--it already has. It's become one of the most peace-loving nations on earth.

Peace loving my ass, they only don't go invading it neighbors is because of the1960 Japan-US Security Treaty limiting Japan's Military. But still the Japan's navy is one of the world's top navy, but how the fuck is that limited then? And how fucking peace-loving are they distort history of the Nanking massacre and keep increasing their navy???

[Yoogle]

At 8/7/05 12:06 PM, net_blob wrote:

At 8/7/05 09:30 AM, -Illustrious- wrote:

However, Japan no longer needs to learn a lesson from the bomb--it already has. It's become one of the most peace-loving nations on earth.

Peace loving my ass, they only don't go invading it neighbors is because of the1960 Japan-US Security Treaty limiting Japan's Military. But still the Japan's navy is one of the world's top navy, but how the fuck is that limited then? And how fucking peace-loving are they distort history of the Nanking massacre and keep increasing their navy???

Please Japan only has the JSDF as a standing army. also China doesnt have anything to be guilty about in terms of invading neighbord huh? *Cough Tibet Cough*

and as far as massacres go they can do it themselves pretty well *Cough Tiananmen Massacre Cough*

So let get the fact strait you cant blame this generation for crimes done 60 years ago

So my point is no empire that existed was ever clean, but if you wanna dwell in hate all your life fine by me.

[bulletskygod]

This is a debate that historians debate furiously about because there might not have been a right choice of action. Who would you support with 20/20 hindsight? It's a very hard choice because inevitably, there was no right choice. It's a war.

Even though Japan were at a retreat, sacrificing more lives would just lead to a war of attrition. However, nuking them brings the notch up and the external costs are heavy. The world is filled with "What Ifs"...Heck, several historians and authors have published books on "What Ifs".

What if the nuke wasn't dropped? What if Germany was...? What if Japan was...? What if the Rape of Nanjing never happened? What if the USSR had...?

The fact that they did it, we're stuck with plenty of weapons of mass destruction, Japan refuses to apologise, the rest of the world refuses to apologise...etc...shows the current state we're in. This is the world now. Post-Cold War. Post-WW2. Post Vietnam War. Post-War. Now we're just hoping for no WW3 because, as Einstein (I think) once said, "Regardless how World War 3 would be fought, World War 4 would be fought with Sticks and Stones."

[TheDoctor]

I think dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was a poor choice. Granted, America did need an effective demonstration of the weapon to convince Japan to surrender, but why oh why did they do so in such a widely populated area? Surely they could have obliterated a smaller, or more strategic target. In the end it would still have been clear how powerful the A-bomb was, and even if the Japanese still refused to surrender, well then they could have attacked larger targets.
The situation should have been more "Look, you know we can devestate you in battle, so just surrender ok?" and less "BOOM! HAHA, PWNED, WAT'CHA GONNA DO NOW EH?".

[Camarohusky]

It is now time to get schooled on japanese History.

At 8/7/05 03:49 AM, Pluto_from_Below wrote: And now i want to copy a text from wikipedia , you should read it. Most important it says that japan was probably going to surrender soon and that Japan wasn't warned.

Japan made some half hearted surrender attempts. Japan would have never given an unconditional surrender such as the allies wanted. And when a country comes and bombs your soil, starves your soldiers and kills countelss civilians, there is no way you can get a peaceful equal surrender when you call for an unconditional.

Yes Japan wasn't warned, but what would happen if Japan was warned and the bombs were duds? That would acctually be counterproductive. Not only would the Americans have to invade, but the Japanese morale would have been raised heavily by the American failure.

At 8/7/05 08:52 AM, mythdragon wrote: Droping bomb was unnecessary show of power. Beside that wasnt military target at all.

Welcome to World War Two n00b. WWII civilian targets became military targets. If you scare the populous so much they will not fight for their leaders. It worked pretty dang well in Germany and Japan.

And saying that without droping bomb more people woud lose lifes, you can also say that stoping hitler before he started war or make intervention when he atacked Poland coud save 50 milions of lifes. Plus Stalin coud get owned and ther was no clod war crisis or eastern block :/

But there was no opportunity to do either of those things, so it doesn't apply.

And now the schooling begins...

At 8/7/05 12:06 PM, net_blob wrote: Peace loving my ass, they only don't go invading it neighbors is because of the1960 Japan-US Security Treaty limiting Japan's Military.

The Am-Po treaty wasn't limitng Japan's army, it was forcing Japan to HAVE an army. Before then, under the Yoshida Doctrine, Japan was playing the US against itself so it didn't have to worry about building and paying for an army. The US used this treaty hoping that it would make the Japanese build an army, but Yoshia cleverly put rules upon this army so it COULD NOT go abroad.

But still the Japan's navy is one of the world's top navy, but how the fuck is that limited then?

No, it's not. It may be high tech, but it isn't big. It's growing, but it sure as fucking hell ain't big.

And how fucking peace-loving are they distort history of the Nanking massacre and keep increasing their navy???

The Japanese have never apologized for Manchuria, Comfort women, Nanjing or Pearl Harbor, yet the US has never apologized for Hiroshima, Nagasaki, or Tokyo.

Yeah Japan is increasing their Navy. When you have to Icy powder Kegs and then a nut job just a few hundred miles off your coast you build a Navy. Both South Korea and China havy Icy relations with Japan and war is a very big possibility. North Korea does its own thing and is very unpredictable. I think it's about tiem the Japanese build their own Navy and stop relying on the US 3rd fleet to do all of its diplomatic work.

At 8/7/05 03:49 AM, Pluto_from_Below wrote: I wonder, have any of you seen the wounded, the burns, the swollen hands of the survivors of Hiroshima and nagasaki, has any of you thought of the effects of the radiation. There was a women who had millions of very smal pieces of glas in her body; it took years to get them all out. Of other people only a shadow has remained, literally.

It is sad. Even today the children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki have extremely high occurances of birth defects and genetic disease, such as thyroid problems. The effects of the radiation will probably never leave the people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

But this doesn't make the Hiroshima bomb any worse than the firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden. People were trapped in Burning homes for days in Tokyo and hundreds of thousands were burned alive slowly. In Dresden the fires created such high gale force winds that people running away from the blazes were blown back in just to die a slow and painful death.

All bombing are gruesome and bad. The only difference that the A-bomb has is the radiation effect and the pure speed in which it killed countless people.

[Buckdich]

At 8/7/05 08:52 AM, mythdragon wrote: you can also say that stoping hitler before he started war or make intervention when he atacked Poland coud save 50 milions of lifes. :/

Well, we can thank Chamberlain for that with his policy of appeasement.