Hiroshima Marks Atomic Bomb Anniversary

[C0ma]

They really could have warned them

I'm devestating u lot, come on - one of u has to have something!

devestating us?? by saying that we should have warned Japan that we were going to bomb them.....
Lets just say I'm glad that you don't hold a position of power in the US military.

Also you don't seem to have an answer for Japan launching an unprovoked attack aimed at destroying our entire Pacific Fleet. We eren't even in the War at that time...... where was there warning?

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

nobody wants to answer the "torturing the little girl" question....

[Izzy]

devestating us??

Yes, and i'm enjoying it too

by saying that we should have warned Japan that we were going to bomb them.....
Lets just say I'm glad that you don't hold a position of power in the US military.

Yeah - cos if i was i might actually target troops as opposed to peasants - wouldn't that by a PR disaster

Warning them would have given them a chance to surrender and saved 250,000 lives. I'd say that was worth taking

Also you don't seem to have an answer for Japan launching an unprovoked attack aimed at destroying our entire Pacific Fleet. We eren't even in the War at that time...... where was there warning?

 

Classic.

How is that even remotely relevant?

The Japanese attacked a naval base so the US was entitled to exterminate civilians? Dubious logic there! Two wrongs don't make a right - but maybe they do where ur from....

We were alledgely the good guys, thus we were supposed to do things in a moral way - if we fought as u suggest, how the hell would we be any different to them?

[Surfrider]

Surfrider ... very interesting the " saved more lives than killed ..."

Out of curiosity, what would you argue is the most important factor?

do you know a book called The Brothers Karamazov (by Fyodor Dostoevsky)

No

i havent read it. but i read a article a while ago , when the us was about to go to war. and there was this philosophical question, that is brought in the book at some point, i'd like you to answer ....
yes or no ...

I am not sure if this is a question or a statement, sorry bro.  Havent read it though.

would you kill or torture a little innocent girl if that would save humanity ? - like everybody will live in peace and harmony-

I think its a difficult question, and certainly you would have lots of people come out on both sides of this question.  Considering that tons of people die innocently everyday I think you would have to somewhat weigh that against the little girl.  Of course the problem is that she is the means of saving those people.

this little innovent girl get to be tortured for ever, but humanity is safe and happy ?

uh uh ?

No offense bro, but I think you would have to be an absolute ditz not to strongly think out this question.  Sacrifice one life for millions?

you're sick man. you try to think logically " yeah, more life saved, rock n roll .. " but it's because you're on your computer, in your little home with your diet coke can ...

I am not sure why you are attacking me bro, but funny statement considering there were millions of troops that were about to invade Japan risking their own lives for the lives of others, yet you sit here and criticize behind your computer an action that may have saved more lives than it lost.  When you are about to invade Japan or some other country after finishing a 2 year tour in Germany or invading the beaches of D-Day, Ill bet you will have a different perspective on the use of an action that would end the war, save your life, and kill less people than the other action. 

I am not sue if you read the post, but I said number of lives is the most important factor, but certainly not the only factor.

[Surfrider]

devestating us??

Yes, and i'm enjoying it too

by saying that we should have warned Japan that we were going to bomb them.....
Lets just say I'm glad that you don't hold a position of power in the US military.

Yeah - cos if i was i might actually target troops as opposed to peasants - wouldn't that by a PR disaster

Warning them would have given them a chance to surrender and saved 250,000 lives. I'd say that was worth taking

I am sure you probably know far more about this than I, but didnt Japan refuse to surrender after the first bomb?  What makes you think they would have surrendered after a mere warning?

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

yeah, sorry for attacking you.

it's just that the way you talk about INNOCENT dying is unacceptable.
it is NOT right *morally* to kill people to save other people.
just like you said "killing the SEVENTY FOUR THOUSANDS (74, 000) japanese was a good thing cause it might have saved america ..."

first, i think that if you were in front of that little girl, and you just needed to shoot her in the head so humanity leave in peace and heaven on earth ... you wouldnt do it.

if you were behind that little red button that makes the bomb drop on japan, you wouldnt do it. i'm sure of that.

if you can defend the use of a nuclear strike then, would you defend it now ?
can you defend the acts of other countries than the us ?
let say , the usa marches on North korea, and by some mystery, North korea launches a nuclear strike on new york or la, and 100, 000 people die.
would you understand ?
would you see that North Korea did that to save their people ? uh uh ?

[C0ma]

nobody wants to answer the "torturing the little girl" question....

I'll answer it.

Torture.... thats harsh.
But if one (just for argument) Iraqi girl had to die to save 2 American soldiers........sorry..........the little girl goes....

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

nobody wants to answer the "torturing the little girl" question....

I'll answer it.

Torture.... thats harsh.
But if one (just for argument) Iraqi girl had to die to save 2 American soldiers........sorry..........the little girl goes....

wow. ok ....

[Surfrider]

yeah, sorry for attacking you.

No prob, I understand its a passionate discussion

it's just that the way you talk about INNOCENT dying is unacceptable.
it is NOT right *morally* to kill people to save other people.
just like you said "killing the SEVENTY FOUR THOUSANDS (74, 000) japanese was a good thing cause it might have saved america ..."

I can't let you get away with putting a statement in quotes as if I said it when in fact I did not. ?Please only quote real statements, not your characterizations of my statements, it becomes misleading.

I never said it was a good thing. ?I would never characterize death as a good thing. ?Certainly either choice was choosing between two evils. ?Either we invade or we bomb? ?One route arguably lead to fewer deaths than the other. ?Of course there are other factors to look at such as: being the only nation to have used the bomb, creating precedent for such use. ?But there were far more innocents dying during the firebombing of Tokyo than the nuclear weapons. ?Innocent people dying is a horrible thing, but sadly it happens in war.

first, i think that if you were in front of that little girl, and you just needed to shoot her in the head so humanity leave in peace and heaven on earth ... you wouldnt do it.

I am not going to argue with you on this one. ?

Let me ask you this: Say you had a chance at saving one or the other (both innocent parties): 2 lives or random people you never met, or 1 live being your brother (girlfriend, mother or closest relative) what would you choose?

if you were behind that little red button that makes the bomb drop on japan, you wouldnt do it. i'm sure of that.

Its a little different when you are elected and have a duty to protect people. ?Truman certainly protected the people he took an oath to protect. ?I agree though, it would be the toughest decision ever, and I am sure Truman did not take it lightly. ?That is why certain people should make these decisions and not others. ?I will refrain from commenting on whether our current President should be such persons

if you can defend the use of a nuclear strike then, would you defend it now ?

I am not necessarily defending its use, Im simply trying to play devils advocate and present different arguments. ?Certainly, I wouldnt suggest the use of one now, but again, if it would save more lives than it would take, I think it is a debateable topic.

can you defend the acts of other countries than the us ?
let say , the usa marches on North korea, and by some mystery, North korea launches a nuclear strike on new york or la, and 100, 000 people die.
would you understand ?
would you see that North Korea did that to save their people ? uh uh ?

Good question. ?I was looking at the entire thing objectively based on number of lives lost. ?I guess you looked at it from that perspective than you could justify the use by other countries against the US as well. ?However, as I said there are other factors to take into account as well. ?Such as living under a North Korean regime should such use of a weapon cause the US to surrender in such a war. ?How many people would die under the regime? ?How many freedoms would be lost? ?Certainly, its use by someone such as Hitler could be justified on pure numbers if looked at to win a war, but again other factors would have to be taken into account such as rule under Hitler and the possibility of more war and more death.

[C0ma]

We were alledgely the good guys, thus we were supposed to do things in a moral way - if we fought as u suggest, how the hell would we be any different to them?

It's war, not a soccer (futbol) match. People die, if you don't want people to die than don't start a war by bombing our largest concentration of Naval Ships. The only thing on the minds of the people calling the shots in a War time situation is saving as many of OUR troops as possible. We ended the war in 48 hours...... I know you like to pretend that an invasion of Japan wasn't just over the horizon, but it was. So the easiest solution to losing hundreds of thousands of American troops in a matter of days was to drop the bomb. Sorry, but there is no sportsmanship in War.

if you can defend the use of a nuclear strike then, would you defend it now ?
can you defend the acts of other countries than the us ?
let say , the usa marches on North korea, and by some mystery, North korea launches a nuclear strike on new york or la, and 100, 000 people die.
would you understand ?
would you see that North Korea did that to save their people ? uh uh ?

I would fully expect them to launch a Nuclear strike if attacked, if of course they are able to after all of their strategic targets are removed in one night of "Shock and Awe."

I would also fully expect North Korea to be removed from existence if that happened. What do they have, maybe 5 or 6 Nukes since launching their program...... So say they launch on New York City........12 hours later the Far East would be glowing like the Las Vegas Strip. It's always a possibility that there will be another attack with that weaponry, and thats exactly why North Korea hasn't had a mud hole stomped in it's ass yet.

But yes, i would fully understand North Korea's decision to try to get us to surrender in one move without risking Korean troops. Afterall what else could they do, is the Korean Navy going to steam across the Pacific to invade the US....... They would be destroyed before they hit the international date line.

[C0ma]

nobody wants to answer the "torturing the little girl" question....

I'll answer it.

Torture.... thats harsh.
But if one (just for argument) Iraqi girl had to die to save 2 American soldiers........sorry..........the little girl goes....

wow. ok ....

wonder all you want, but until you or one of you family have served in a war zone..... you have no understanding of that question and answer.

[Prometheus]

nobody wants to answer the "torturing the little girl" question....

I'll answer it.

Torture.... thats harsh.
But if one (just for argument) Iraqi girl had to die to save 2 American soldiers........sorry..........the little girl goes....

wow. ok ....

wonder all you want, but until you or one of you family have served in a war zone..... you have no understanding of that question and answer.

you know what moron..... i have had family that have serverd on teh front in WW2, and korea, and vietnam........ you know what...... they were very candid about their experiences, they have seen what you talk about but in more situations it would not happen because of the moralities of the soilders involved...... get it got it good

[C0ma]

nobody wants to answer the "torturing the little girl" question....

I'll answer it.

Torture.... thats harsh.
But if one (just for argument) Iraqi girl had to die to save 2 American soldiers........sorry..........the little girl goes....

wow. ok ....

wonder all you want, but until you or one of you family have served in a war zone..... you have no understanding of that question and answer.

you know what moron..... i have had family that have serverd on teh front in WW2, and korea, and vietnam........ you know what...... they were very candid about their experiences, they have seen what you talk about but in more situations it would not happen because of the moralities of the soilders involved...... get it got it good

If they would let two of their fellow soldiers die to save the life of a little girl, then they don't belong there.

[Izzy]

I am sure you probably know far more about this than I, but didnt Japan refuse to surrender after the first bomb?? What makes you think they would have surrendered after a mere warning?

I don't know if they refused to surrender after Hiroshima but consider this:

They blew up Nagasaki so soon after wards its highly unlikley the government was even fully aware of what had already happened, factor in travel times there and back, the fact every road was ful of refugees etc etc, they weren't even given the chance to consider what had happened and get the Americans an answer

They may not have surrendered after a warning, i never said they would have.

But, the chances are they would have - and if they still refused to surrender when fully informed of this weapon - then the decision to use it becomes slightly more justified

They didn't warn them because they were afriad they would quit and then they'd have no chance to test it

At the end of the day - how could it of hurt to show them? They never even tried

[Izzy]

It's war, not a soccer (futbol) match.

Really? I hadn't realised Both football and war have RULES

People die, if you don't want people to die than don't start a war by bombing our largest concentration of Naval Ships.

Did the people in Hiroshima bomb the naval base?

The only thing on the minds of the people calling the shots in a War time situation is saving as many of OUR troops as possible.

Naive, so naive!

They wanted to test their new toy and frighten the Russians (remember while all these nukes are falling America and Russia are dividing up Europe between them - bit of leverage u see )

We ended the war in 48 hours......

War ended on August 15 if memory serves, Hiroshima was on the 7th - not 48 hours....

I know you like to pretend that an invasion of Japan wasn't just over the horizon, but it was.

Strange that British forces weren't even in position yet - there was no invasion planned till 1946, they wouldn't have been ready till then

So the easiest solution to losing hundreds of thousands of American troops in a matter of days was to drop the bomb.

We agree! It WAS the easiest thing to do. But the easiest way isn't the right way - 250,000 died for convenience!

Sorry, but there is no sportsmanship in War.

Well shows how little u know about war. History is full of galantry in war. Oh yes, even the Germans in WW2 showed tremendous decency to western troops (not eastern troops...)

When u are fighting against evil how on earth can u use evil means!

U seem rather immoral in ur views on war - 250k maybe just a statistic to u but read the accounts of those that were there, give a face to that number and then tell me it was justified

If war is simply to be won then using gas and biological weapons would have been the best way to beat Japan - they could have killed them all off, every last one!

If the means justify the ends in war then killing every male in Iraq would achieve peace!

If u are prepared to disgard rules in war then u get the war that was fought by Germany against Russia - they killed every man woman and child they saw - as a tactic that works, that will help u win - but its beyond the pale, its immoral and there comes a point where defeat itself is a better alternative than to have reduced urself to such inhumanity that u are as bad as those u fight

IF Japan had had the means to continue fighting and killing Allied forces on an epic scale and surrender was years away and if EVERY alternative had been exhasuted then those nukes could be justified.

But that wasn't the case. A defeated enemy was massacred. I wonder what the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have gone on to do with their lives if our leaders hadn't lost their humanity.

[ppbebe]

I don't know if they refused to surrender after Hiroshima but consider this:

They blew up Nagasaki so soon after wards its highly unlikley the government was even fully aware of what had already happened, factor in travel times there and back, the fact every road was ful of refugees etc etc, they weren't even given the chance to consider what had happened and get the Americans an answer

They may not have surrendered after a warning, i never said they would have.

But, the chances are they would have - and if they still refused to surrender when fully informed of this weapon - then the decision to use it becomes slightly more justified

They didn't warn them because they were afriad they would quit and then they'd have no chance to test it

Yeah, Warning japanese leaders would have given them a chance to surrender and saved 250,000 lives and that might have hurt the god damn project.
I'm not sure but didn't the US distribute the warning bills that didn't fully inform of this weapon over these cities?

I am sure you probably know far more about this than I, but didnt Japan refuse to surrender after the first bomb?

Nope. With all their thickness, the japanese rulers had a capitulation ready.
Like Izzy said above and in his other posts in this thread they had run out of their thin resources even before that point. The whole nation was starving. It was a matter of time.

When you are about to invade Japan or some other country after finishing a 2 year tour in Germany or invading the beaches of D-Day, Ill bet you will have a different perspective on the use of an action that would end the war, save your life, and kill less people than the other action.

If you were the innocent citizen in Hiroshima or Nagasaki at the time of the A bomb attack and after, I bet you would have a different perspective on the use of an action that would end the war, save your life, and kill less people than the other action.

[Izzy]

I'm not sure but didn't the US distribute the warning bills that didn't fully inform of this weapon over these cities?

I'd be surprised if there was anything dropped over these cities beforehand

They were packed full of refugees as they were the only cities not hit by the firebombings- when the Enola Gay flew over they sounded the air attack alarm and then blew the all clear thinking one plane was of no threat - they weren't expecting anything

Guess those refugees just picked the wrong city to go to eh?

I've always wondered how many hospitals and temples and schools where flattened - military targets the lot of them

[Prometheus]

nobody wants to answer the "torturing the little girl" question....

I'll answer it.

Torture.... thats harsh.
But if one (just for argument) Iraqi girl had to die to save 2 American soldiers........sorry..........the little girl goes....

wow. ok ....

wonder all you want, but until you or one of you family have served in a war zone..... you have no understanding of that question and answer.

you know what moron..... i have had family that have serverd on teh front in WW2, and korea, and vietnam........ you know what...... they were very candid about their experiences, they have seen what you talk about but in more situations it would not happen because of the moralities of the soilders involved...... get it got it good

If they would let two of their fellow soldiers die to save the life of a little girl, then they don't belong there.

your some idiot seriously.... so i guess you would shoot every pow you had if it meant getting one to talk so you could in teh future save 2 lives?

[ppbebe]

nobody wants to answer the "torturing the little girl" question....

I'll answer it.

Torture.... thats harsh.
But if one (just for argument) Iraqi girl had to die to save 2 American soldiers........sorry..........the little girl goes....

wow. ok ....

wonder all you want, but until you or one of you family have served in a war zone..... you have no understanding of that question and answer.

you know what moron..... i have had family that have serverd on teh front in WW2, and korea, and vietnam........ you know what...... they were very candid about their experiences, they have seen what you talk about but in more situations it would not happen because of the moralities of the soilders involved...... get it got it good

If they would let two of their fellow soldiers die to save the life of a little girl, then they don't belong there.

you may belong there but not to the human race. sorry.
by no means I would like to belong to the criminal against the civil with no arm and no harm.
Your statement tells there is no other excuse for the bombs than the chauvinism.
No? Then Answer me. What If the little girl was your daughter?
It's like defending a wrestler who hit a girl in the cheering section for his opponent wrestler to piss off the latter.
The solders are there to fight. They are agreed to risk their lives. While The girl is obviously not.

The simile of the torture someone's entire life is spot on for the A bomb disease or any radioactive illness. Unlike other wound or burn, the radioactive damage never heals up.  the radiation harms your genes fatally, which stops your new cells from regenerating the injuries. the damaged parts just keep shrinking. That never be cured with all today's medical science. You got to live with the forever pains. It's nothing but a torture.

Can't you see this issue is not really about America vs japan or the country A vs the rest, on the whole.
It deals with the subjects like the rulers vs the ruled, the strong and the weak, or politicians vs civilians.

More importantly, It's a matter of humanity.

[Surfrider]

I am sure you probably know far more about this than I, but didnt Japan refuse to surrender after the first bomb?? What makes you think they would have surrendered after a mere warning?

I don't know if they refused to surrender after Hiroshima but consider this:

They blew up Nagasaki so soon after wards its highly unlikley the government was even fully aware of what had already happened, factor in travel times there and back, the fact every road was ful of refugees etc etc, they weren't even given the chance to consider what had happened and get the Americans an answer

They may not have surrendered after a warning, i never said they would have.

But, the chances are they would have - and if they still refused to surrender when fully informed of this weapon - then the decision to use it becomes slightly more justified

They didn't warn them because they were afriad they would quit and then they'd have no chance to test it

At the end of the day - how could it of hurt to show them? They never even tried

Thanks for the answer, it seems that you are quite knowledgeable on this subject.  The only thing is that there were only two bombs that were made.  I dont think the americans wanted to risk showing one as a demonstration and then only have one left to use.  Your point on the travel of info is a good one though.