Hiroshima calls for nuke-free world (1 Viewer)

[Empyrean444]

At the end of the day, the Axis cause was rotten and they knew this on some level. Defeat was inevitable.

You aren't seriously suggesting that Germany lost the war because they were morally wrong?

 

[Iron]

I think that if Germans were sincerely convinced that the Nazi cause was worth dying for, then they'd still be around. The fact is that the cause of tyranny and aggression is hardly as motivating as self-defence.

 

[loquasagacious]

I think the issue is not so much incendiary bombs. I think the issue is: in order to win a war should you kill 100,000 people in one night, by firebombing or any other way? LeMay's answer would be clearly "Yes."

Do you mean to say that instead of killing 100,000, burning to death 100,000 Japanese civilians in one night, we should have burned to death a lesser number or none? And then had our soldiers cross the beaches in Tokyo and been slaughtered in the tens of thousands? Is that what you're proposing? Is that moral? Is that wise?

Why was it necessary to drop the nuclear bomb if LeMay was burning up Japan? And he went on from Tokyo to firebomb other cities. 58% of Yokohama. Yokohama is roughly the size of Cleveland. 58% of Cleveland destroyed. Tokyo is roughly the size of New York. 51% percent of New York destroyed. 99% of the equivalent of Chattanooga, which was Toyama. 40% of the equivalent of Los Angeles, which was Nagoya. This was all done before the dropping of the nuclear bomb, which by the way was dropped by LeMay's command.

Proportionality should be a guideline in war. Killing 50% to 90% of the people of 67 Japanese cities and then bombing them with two nuclear bombs is not proportional, in the minds of some people, to the objectives we were trying to achieve.

I don't fault Truman for dropping the nuclear bomb. The U.S.-Japanese War was one of the most brutal wars in all of human history -kamikaze pilots?, suicide?, unbelievable. What one can criticize is that the human race prior to that time, and today, has not really grappled with what I'll call "the rules of war." Was there a rule then that said you shouldn't bomb, shouldn't kill, shouldn't burn to death 100,000 civilians in one night?

LeMay said, "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." And I think he's right. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?

From a very good documentary:
[youtube]pmJDj-oLYyM[/youtube]

There's also much greater ability to distinguish and target military targets, avoiding civilian casualties with things such as 'smart' weapons. This lends a greater responsibility to carry out war in a more humane manner. Technology has shifted the moral landscape so that blind incendiary bombing for years would undoubtedly be considered war crimes, even if you were on the victorious side.

Yes and no. Technology is better than WWII - but it's not that much better. Firstly most munitions are still 'dumb', secondly smart munitions are relying on grainy images being looked at by people a great distance from the actual target. This is why we accidentally bomb weddings, mistake friendlies for enemies and generally kill people we didn't intend on.

Imo the greater the distance between the person pulling the trigger and the person being killed the greater the potential for accidental killings. In this way I think that killing people hand-to-hand provides the greatest opportunity to be moral and soldiers with rifles are the next best.

Even then we have seen again and again enemies mix with civilians, infantry gets jittery and civilians get shot.

I think that if Germans were sincerely convinced that the Nazi cause was worth dying for, then they'd still be around. The fact is that the cause of tyranny and aggression is hardly as motivating as self-defence.

I strongly disagree with this statement. On the one hand I think that many Germans were convinced that the Nazi cause (or the preservation of Germany) was worth dying for and die they did. On the other hand the forces that Germany faced were simply too great. The might of the Anglo-American war machine was rolling in from the west and from the East came the immensity of the Soviet war machine. In all seriousness regardless of how determined the Germans were either of these forces could have steamrolled all of Europe (by this point in the war, had Germany never invaded Russia it may have been a very different story for the West).

 

[44Ronin]

The technology of the atomic bomb prevented the third world war with the eastern bloc.

If nuclear weapons weren't in the picture, we would have come directly to blows with the soviets, instead of fighting the pseudo-war to prevent neutrals turning to the power and ideology of the other bloc.

 

[David Spade]

Yep, and you should be the first. Seriously, have you thought that everyone is someone? they arent just nobodies that noone cares about. So ask yourself, would you like to be dead? Or lose all your family? Don't be so ignorant.


Any country would be like that, seeming that they had hundred of thousands die, most almost instantly. Think of the people and what devastation they have seen, experienced. They want peace so noone will ever have to go through what they have been through.

Even if there are genetic mutations, it doesnt stop them being human... and no less intelligent. Also it wasnt all japan that was affected by the blast, but it has impacted on every citizens life.


If we still hold onto the past then how will we ever move towards the future? If we hold onto hate then noone will ever be happy.

and how can you justify killing anyone?
Most of the people killed in the hiroshima and nagasaki blasts were civilians and innocents. Also japan had already agreed to surrender, but they wanted to keep their emperor alive. America in the end just bombed them because of a couple of reasons:

*Revenge
*They spent millions on developing a weapon, they wanted to test it
*Wanted to show Russia how much power they had

You're a moron

Japan was in no way defeated and had no surrendered you sped.

The options at the time were. Attack Japan by land which they estimated would have caused ~2million deaths

OR

Use the nuke and scare japan into surrendering, with a ~250000 deaths. No one cares that they were civilians, that is irrelevant.

 

[David Spade]

hilter was actually quite smart, how do you think he got where he was?

the problem was his ideals

hitler was a loon

 

[David Spade]

lol
If those were the options then I agree with you.

If those were the two options, then everyone would agree with you. Doesn't the fact that there is this huge debate prove that it isn't that simple?

Those were the options you moron. Hence why the option with the least potential casualities was adopted. The only reason there is debate is because idiots like you dont understand.

 

[Tangent]

You're a moron

Japan was in no way defeated and had no surrendered you sped.

The options at the time were. Attack Japan by land which they estimated would have caused ~2million deaths

OR

Use the nuke and scare japan into surrendering, with a ~250000 deaths. No one cares that they were civilians, that is irrelevant.

have you just skipped the last 165406552654 pages??
Japan agreed to surrender on the condition of keeping their emperor, but the U.S. was never clear about what the surrender conditions were.

About whether Japan was defeated or not, their defeat was imminent- their supplies were cut, they were military resources were critically low, all of which is posted in previous pages.

Read up bud before you post. And you totally missed my point if you think there is no difference between going to fight and being killed on the battlefield, and sitting in your own home, hoping that youre being protected, unaware of an attack, unable to defend yourself. Everyone is someone.

I have learnt a great deal in this thread, but i still hold that the blasts were unnecessary. Unlike you who have just ignored the past 8 pages.

 

[loquasagacious]

Japan agreed to surrender on the condition of keeping their emperor, but the U.S. was never clear about what the surrender conditions were.

Even after the nuclear bombings cabinet was split on this issue. The (slim) majority were in favour of the emperors personal safety being the only condition, a large minority favoured a Weimar style conditional surrender (actually it was probably even more lenient the the Versailles terms..)

 

[Iron]

but what UR ignoring LOAQ is that the allies were juz as BAD as the Japanese and we were WRING to mek them surrender bc they were really BETTER than us @hrt. If we led them alone, then then the war stop en no LIFE is lest

and wot aboud RACISM???

 

[SnowFox]

Surrender of Japan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read Please.

 

[Random_dude]

no, the ultimate weapon is power, you could have little knowledge and plenty of power and be extremely distructive... just ask hitler

a) it is "destructive"
b) well sorry i took so long
c) that is all well and good that the ultimate weapon is power, but how do you get it
d) i will make it easy for you. it is knowledge. it does not have to be knowledge about everything, it just has to have some sort of access to power, like what hitler did. he gained the knowledge to talk people into doing whatever he wanted.

 

[Tangent]

but what UR ignoring LOAQ is that the allies were juz as BAD as the Japanese and we were WRING to mek them surrender bc they were really BETTER than us @hrt. If we led them alone, then then the war stop en no LIFE is lest

and wot aboud RACISM???

Don't put words in my mouth, im helping provide the other side of the argument =P

Don't assume

 

[44Ronin]

The west won. Might is right etc,. ad nauseum.

 

[Big Boss]

I hope one day that nuclear weapons will become standard weapons of war.
However it must circumvent the defense systems present in modern militaries for it to be successful once again.

 

[murphyad]

Firstly, excuse me if I post anything that's already been said.

Last year, I too agreed with the line that Truman's decision to drop the bomb was a necessary evil. However, after visiting Hiroshima in the new year, this attitude of mine changed. I think this has a lot to do with being able to experience the Japanese perspective on the incident as well as the ways in which it has continued to affect Japan over time, a subject that seems to have been mostly ignored in this thread. So, without further ado, i present the case.......

1. That the bomb was not 'necessary':
This has already been covered pretty well. Some say that it was the 'lesser of two evils.' However, there were more than two options. The third option was a definitive clause in the Potsdam Declaration allowing the Japanese to keep their emperor system. Interestingly, it was not until after the bombs were dropped that such a clause was stipulated by the Allies, suggesting that there was some other value in dropping the bomb. Leading into my next point....

2. That the bomb was also an experiment:
Numerous pieces of evidence point to this being the case. Firstly, Hiroshima was chosen as a target partially because it's topography formed a bowl shape that provided a good indication of the bomb's potency. Secondly, US Air Force photographs declassified in 2007 indicate that the Americans conducted overflights of Hiroshima before and after the bombing to study it's effects, but obviously this information was not revealed for several decades, suggesting a certain level of secrecy in the Americans' actions. Thirdly, the bomb was specifically dropped at a time of day where many citizens were out in the open building firebreaks and the like, denoting a deliberate decision to aim for maximum casualties. Lastly, the effects of the bomb produced a wide range of sufferers (more on this later) who required medical attention. However, American forces did not provide adequate treatment for many of these sufferers for several years after the bombings, and in some cases simply photographed abnormalities to observe the results . This poor treatment indicates that the US saw value in killing civilians and withholding treatment for scientific purposes. Ergo, the bombings were not simply a matter of military necessity; they were also calculated murder for the sake of science.

3. That the effects of the bomb continue to be felt today:
Unlike conventional wartime bombing, the long-term effects caused by radiation continue to blight many Japanese citizens. My family and I were toured around the site of the hypocenter by a bomb survivor, who remained unborn when his mother visited Hiroshima a few days after the bombing. Despite this, he suffered the aftereffects of the bomb's radiation for most of his youth, when he was sickly and pale, often having to visit the doctor: despite not even being born at the time of the bombing! The truth is that the atomic bombs affected far more people than conventional means of warfare, and in many ways: some were instantly vapourised, some simply shed the skin on their fingers, vomited blood and died a week (or a month) later.

I'd like to point out to everyone in this forum that it is totally unacceptable to determine the role of the Japanese as a collective. Yes, it was the Japanese who conducted the Rape of Nanking, and who used Allied soldiers as slaves. But they were not the same Japanese who were the victims of the most horrific weapon ever used on mankind. These were ordinary civilians. This is the real problem with defining the Japanese as an holistic entity that collectively deserved to punished for what were really military or political decisions. To anyone who says that the Japanese got what they deserved, let me just say that no-one in Hiroshima deserved to be a victim of that atomic bombing. And as far as they're concerned, no-one else does either. The mayor of Hiroshima has sent a letter of condemnation to anyone who conducts a nuclear test (and continues to send them), for it is those citizens of Hiroshima, past and present, who know that while nuclear weapons exist humanity is at risk of being subjected to a repeat of history, a technological horror unleashed upon unwilling and unwitting men, women and children who individually committed no wrong.

 

[Big Boss]

I belive it's the United States of America's turn to be struck with nuclear warfare and I hope it receives the same or more damage Japan did for betraying me and my comrades in the Vietnam War era with their outrageous plans.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

With regard to the ethical question of whether dropping the bomb was the 'right' thing to do, we can look at other periods of history which indicate that there are other ways of doing things, instead of bombing the shit out of others. In fact, the Cuban Missile Crisis demonstrated that diplomacy *can* work, and the consequences of the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts present yet another example for why bombing is *never* the best choice, Hiroshima or otherwise.

 

[murphyad]

Whoa HD bit of thread necromancy right there

 

[HumanDichotomy]

Oh yeah. Well, y'know how I can't resist making my opinion known.