Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

ok this is quite a topic, and is very controversial. Either way, I think that the Americans just dropped the bomb to test out how much damage they could cause with radiation poisoning, pure destruction, etc. Another reason I think that they dropped the bomb for, is that they figured that it would be better to lose thousands of Japanese including civilians, than to lose half the amount killing soldiers of japan.

At 8/8/05 11:24 PM, yellowsmoke wrote: Boy, children these days... good retort kiddo.

I'm not sure, are you trying to make yourself look like an idiot by countering with 'kiddo' and 'children'?

Look em up kiddo. They're not hard to find.

Ah, in other words, you made it up.

Not really but okay.

If its false then prove it wrong.

Hiroshima was an attack on a civilian population. Thats why it was chosen. If you understood your history, you'd realize that very early on during WWII people pretty much gave up on protecting civilian populations.

Not protecting civilian populations is not the same as attacking civilian populations.

See, if you had half a brain cell you'd do some research and realize that the leaflets were dropped roughly 12 hours before the bomb was dropped. Yep, that proves your point that civilians wern't targetted.

You can't leave a city in 12 hours? How hard would it be for Japan to surrender in 12 hours? What makes you so sure the reason we didn't wait to bomb was because nobody was leaving?

Hmmm, one guy eh... he was only the Chief of Staff to two presidents. Thats basically what Karl Rove is to George W.

And Karl Rove sure knew alot about what would happen in Iraq.

And you did not rebut my second point, either.

again, kiddo, you're a twit.

Haha. Thats the funny part about moronic anti-US shitheads, they can never give a rebuttal.

Sorry, missed this part.

At 8/8/05 11:24 PM, yellowsmoke wrote: Actually, we took action against elected administrations that had communistic ideals. IE, countries that elected their people, but didn't elect a fascist administration that bowed to US policy. Basically, once control was in the hands of the working class, we stepped in because we realized that we couldn't take advantage of the governments that were in place.

We never took action against elected administrations. You just think we did because your an idiot and listen to everything other idiots tell you. Really, give me an example.

dropping the bomb was totally justified, it shortened the war considerably, saving many american lives (which was the main priority of the americans). without it the war could have draged on for many years and in the long run claimed the lives of many more ppl.

At 8/9/05 07:07 AM, -TheDoctor- wrote: Alright, let's start from the beginning:
I stated that peasant village massacres were similar in nature to Hiroshima. That the killing of civilians could be justified as a means to demoralise the enemy. I went on to say that this was not the case in Vietnam, as such relatively small and isolated incidents could never be justified, the fact remains though that the American government could have tried to justify these events in the same way they did Hiroshima, but they were sensible, and therefore didn't. You said that an event would have to be on a large scale to have any considerable effect, which was the same thing I mentioned. The nature of the two events is comparable in this way, although the motivation for Hiroshima can be justified to a considerable extent.

If the means and the ends are not similar, then how are they similar. The American government could not have justified My Lai like that, because it niether achieved those effects or was done to achieve them. The A-bomb however, did in fact do both of those. How is the nature the same if neither are alike in any way?

Other than the sudden nature of the attack, relative lack of warning about the full extent of what would happen, and the fact that Japan used tactics such as suicide bombing and torture during the war. Interviews with the crew of the Enola Gay show that soldiers had very low opinions of the Japanese at the time, many hated them due to their methods of warfare, and events like Pearl Harbour. Let us not also forget that the USA is a patriotic nation by nature. There is no concrete proof, but suffice to say it's unlikely the motives to drop the bomb were strictly impersonal.

The pilots of the Enola Gay did not make the deciscion to drop the bomb. Truman did. So really all you have is the sudden nature, and there is absolutely no way to drop an atomic bomb subtley.

If you had a time machine, then that's all very well. But at the time there was no way of knowing what the long-term effects of such an action might be, plus the true extent of the holocaust was not known until after/at the end of the war. There are too many "what if's" in a situation like that to justify the decision at the time.
If the motivation was to bring about an end to the war, then it makes sense, but the holocaust was too much of a grey area at the time to make a decision like that based what you have said.

What? You have forgotten completely what the origin of this was. Of course we couldn't see back in time, but with Japan we were given the chance of seeing into the future. If indeed more people would have died, the atomic bombing would have been completely justified, I used bombing Germany to stop the holocaust as an example of that.

I was merely stating that your persona makes me doubt some of your arguments. I can't help it if I feel that way, but that's the kind of impression you give when debating the way you have been. You really have no one to blame but yourself for that one.

No, if you think someone is an idiot because you are too quick to judge them it is indeed your fault.

And even disregarding that, you would still be using my charachter to prove your argument correct, which is poor debate at best.

Not understanding a specific point is being a moron? Now you are starting to read between the lines in the wrong places. I do not think you are a moron.

Lacking the capacity to grasp a point is being a moron.

Yes... well I think we can leave it at that. This discission has gone way off track, to the point of being somewhat trivial. My original point was that more warning should have been given to Japan and it's citizens, preferable in a demonstration of the A-bomb beforehand. Albeit, this would have had very little effect on the situation, given what we know, but the fact that America hardly even tried is what I find appalling. For me the bomb would have been a very last resort, if anything the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at least deserved to know exactly what was going to happen.

We only had two bombs though, and the Soviet were getting ready to invade. The deciscion was made to end the war fast.

At 8/10/05 11:28 AM, Blackhawkdown wrote: Yeah but if we had just demostrated it then not only would we have wasted one of them bombs the Japanese would think that we wouldn't actually drop the bomb. Also why would a demostration of it's power make them surrende, when we had to destroy two cities to finally get them to surrender?

Yet if the Japanese didn't surrender, which factions within the heirarchy were still adamant they shouldn't and (as I said) rightly believed the US had shot their load, an invasion of the Japanese mainland would still have to take place. Ergo a waste of time, effort and a considerable amount of lives.

You miss the point - demonstrate the power in the proximity of The Emperor, which the Japanese wanted to protect no matter what (which is the main reason they didn't surrender despite starving as a nation) would surely make their minds up just as quick? Psychology is a partof warfare, too.

There was no need for the A bomb, At least if the America invaded it would have killed soldiers and not over 100k civilians which were mainly children attending school at the time

At 8/11/05 05:18 PM, krama89 wrote: There was no need for the A bomb, At least if the America invaded it would have killed soldiers and not over 100k civilians which were mainly children attending school at the time

u can hardly say it was mainly kids, it was everyone within several square miles. and i think it was justified, they were given fair warning, either surrended or we A-bomb ur ass...1....2.....3... kabooom. they cant say they wernt warned. id have dropped it on tokyo straight off instead of wasting the second 1

At 8/11/05 05:22 PM, PhysicsMafia wrote: id have dropped it on tokyo straight off instead of wasting the second 1

where was the governemnt at the time? because if they were in tokyo then there wouldve been no one to officially surrender. was the emporer there? i probably should know this. but killing the emporer.....might make them even more determined not to surrender

At 8/11/05 05:22 PM, PhysicsMafia wrote:
u can hardly say it was mainly kids, it was everyone within several square miles. and i think it was justified, they were given fair warning, either surrended or we A-bomb ur ass...1....2.....3... kabooom. they cant say they wernt warned. id have dropped it on tokyo straight off instead of wasting the second 1

They never said they'd use the A Bomb, just "Surrender your military now, or you'll be sorry." Of course, asking for just an army to surrender, rather than the whole people, indicates they'll nuke the shit out of you, doesn't it? It isn't possible it could be interpreted as "Call off your troops, we can't handle it anymore." Considering the antics of Comical Ali, the military aren't in the job of admitting defeat. Ask an Alabaman about the American Civil War...

At 8/11/05 05:18 PM, krama89 wrote: There was no need for the A bomb, At least if the America invaded it would have killed soldiers and not over 100k civilians which were mainly children attending school at the time

Dude...that would killed more soldiers of both Japan and USA. The A-bomb was the thing that ended WWII and the US got revenge for the Japan attacks on Pearl Harbor.

At 8/12/05 07:06 AM, GeneralMBison wrote: US got revenge for the Japan attacks on Pearl Harbor.

Riiiiiiight..... because bombing a civilian target in revenge of what happened to military target is moraly accepteable.

Watch a weapon of mass destruction exploding; courtesy of national geographic magazine.

linkage

lets hope this doesn't hapen aigan

The first bomb was good, the second bomb was not. Like the americans really couldn't have persauded the Japnese to surrender. I think the words "next one is headed for tokyo" could have done it without a second bomb.
But in a way, it seems pointless debating on something that happened so long ago. Though since the Japanese are still pissed, maybe not