Possible the best choice to end the war but being the best choice does not mean it is not evil.
A bit like you have a problem with someone and you then beat up his kid or wife;..
war is not beautifull but the USA troops are making it very ugly aswell..
Now again you have the ones who are kicking Afghan civilians for fun/the kick.
Pimp3k said:
There is no such thing as "necessary evil". There is simply evil or god. Calling something as necessary evil will not justify it. It was maybe necessary from your point of view because your American. But intentional killing of millions civilians is nothing more and nothing else then genocide. |
It didn't kill millions of civilians. (though it killed quite a lot...)
However, million(s) of people probably would have died if it weren't dropped. Do you consider this alternative to be "good?"
Japan was really not intending to surrender. At all. The only other option was to invade Japan, but that would've causted thousands of lives on both sides, especially for Japanese civilians.
The U.S had no option but to use the nukes.
And besides, the point that there were no millitary bases and it was just for bombing civilians is not true.
Hiroshima had the head quarter of Japan's second army and was a communication center n' all that.
As for Nagasaki, they were extremely unlucky. Kokura was the original target, but most of the city was covered by clouds and it got in the way of the bombing, so they just bombed Nagasaki instead.
I agree that the nuke was a horrible thing, but it was necessary to end World War II. It really is basically being between a rock and a hard thing.
Tag (Courtesy of Fkusumot) "If I'm posting in this thread then it's probally a spam thread."
i hope everyone agrees that the second one was unnecessary. The threat of a second would have worked just as well...
Romance is like playing Mastermind except the girl never tells you which pegs you got right. - Seanbaby
Ok so imagine this scenario. If China and the US were to ever go at blows again. and we (US) decide to not surrender to them since they will kick our ass and we know it. They can either invade us or nuke every major city we have and that would be the "right" thing.
B.S. the U.S. had no right to destroy those cities. We see it differently but imagine if you were one of the people who WERE harmed in that shit.
yanamaster said:
You honestly think that back in the 40's they didn't have second thoughts about this? It was war. A very bad one at that. And Japan was the last thing in the way toward ending it once and for all. Considering what the other options were, then this was the best one. And opinions like "it's unacceptable" that come from people living in total peace, such as yourself,are out of place. You totally do not understand the reality of the times, only as much as you read or play COD games. Which means nothing to be frank. And truthfully, i don't see how the death of 300 000 people in two cities by an A-bomb is any more unacceptable than the millions by guns, gas chambers, drowning, freezing, electrocution etc that happened across Europe and Russia. There's one other thing as well, the importance of these cities during the war. hiroshima was a very important mainland army base while Nagasaki was the biggest and most important sea port in Japan at the time. Both these cities were of crucial militaristic value to Japan. What was attacked? Soldiers, tanks, boats factories etc. Were there civilians? Yes. Were they passive? Practically no. An old saying goes, that a civilian is a civilian until he picks up a gun. |
lol @ that... I've lived in a country where civil war was raging on for 30 years so that we had to leave that country temporarily cause all of the friggin explosions taking place daily....now we're considering moving back since its over...but I've definitely felt the effects of war probably more than anyone in this forum.
| Wagram said: Ok so imagine this scenario. If China and the US were to ever go at blows again. and we (US) decide to not surrender to them since they will kick our ass and we know it. They can either invade us or nuke every major city we have and that would be the "right" thing.
B.S. the U.S. had no right to destroy those cities. We see it differently but imagine if you were one of the people who WERE harmed in that shit. |
More people would have been armed if the U.S had actually invaded Japan.
And with the Soviet Union declaring war on Japan, Japan would've also most likely been separated between Comuunists and Capitalists after the war. Bringing even more problems in itself.
Tag (Courtesy of Fkusumot) "If I'm posting in this thread then it's probally a spam thread."
Saved a lot of American (and Chinese, southeast asian, etc. all the people Japan were attacking) lives and ended the war. I think it was justified.
| NunedQ said: i hope everyone agrees that the second one was unnecessary. The threat of a second would have worked just as well... |
Japan was unwilling to surrender under US terms.
I believe the Japanese emperor wanted to remain in power.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
