Those bombs were entirely unnecessary, as was the fire-bombing of Tokyo.
I think it is ironic that the 'world police' who is spreading fear about other nations having nuclear weapons, and in some cases even lying about it (Iraq), is the only country that has ever used one. Not only have they used it once, but twice even.
| akuseru said: I think it is ironic that the 'world police' who is spreading fear about other nations having nuclear weapons, and in some cases even lying about it (Iraq), is the only country that has ever used one. Not only have they used it once, but twice even. |
and until now they still supporting Israel killing innocent people in Palestine, i hate the hipocrisy from US Government, and also before that a long time ago they have been murdered many Indian in Americas while proclaiming Human Rights LOl 
Japan was virtually defeated. USA did it to steal the MVP trophy from Russia and submit their application as the top dog in the nWo.
War is by itself is immoral. The reason is simple because in order to win you must destroy enemy moral.
Any society is made up from family's so you need to make those bleed in lives, economics and most of all willpower untill they throw up their hands and surrender. That is how wars are won.
The nuclear bombs were simply the fasted way to accomplish that goal in Japan.
In the wilderness we go alone with our new knowledge and strength.
| Salnax said: First, I am sorry that thousands of innocent people died. The same applies to all comparable incidents, especially those caused by human violence. Was it justifiable? I think it probably was. There are those who argue that a Japanese surrender was imminent, but to my knowledge, the intimidation tactics of Little Boy and Fat Man brought far less deaths than the invasion of Japan would have. If I remember correctly, the working assumption was that over 10 million Japanese would die in a country with under 75 million people total. Not to mention that Japan would have received a lot more damage to its infrastructure, making recovery far more difficult, and would likely have been partially conquered by the Soviet Union, much like East Germany. A big recurring argument I've heard about atomic bombs is that unlike more conventional bombs, they harm people for years to come due to their radioactive effects. However, I don't think this was unique to atomic bombs. Land mines are less dramatic than nukes, but there are millions of those around the world left over from as early as 1914, which are still completely lethal. I don't want any of this activity to happen, but this was not particularly reprehensible, at least to my knowledge. |
I agree for the most part.
OP: I'm an American, but I have spent many years learning history from different perspectives and views.
WW2 is on my favorites to learn.
With that said, I think it was 100% justified. You had a Japanese army with limitless mental fortitude. They would not have given in so easily had we invaded via frontal assault.
We saved lives by taking lives. In no way am I excusing that we still killed many civilians. But, it could have been worse.
Drastic times do indeed call for drastic measures. I am a fan of "go hard or go home" mentality when it comes to war.
Either you attack with everything you go in order to end the war, or you don't attack at all.
This pick and choose bullshit that has plagued America in Vietnam and now the middle east will be the death of us.
Currently own:
Currently playing: Witcher 3, Walking Dead S1/2, GTA5, Dying Light, Tomb Raider Remaster, MGS Ground Zeros
I don't think anything about it since I'm decoupled from history and politics ...
I bet the Japanese do know what the american's did to imperial Japan since their history classes included topics on World War 2 ...
In war anything is necessary to win so the A-bomb on Hiroshima was absolutely justified in that respect and it's not like it didn't have any good consequences either like saving american soldier lives who would have to die in a place of ruin if they were sent there ...
| akuseru said: I think it is ironic that the 'world police' who is spreading fear about other nations having nuclear weapons, and in some cases even lying about it (Iraq), is the only country that has ever used one. Not only have they used it once, but twice even. |
Who better to warn the world of nuclear weapons than those who have first-hand experience?
| BraLoD said: Attacking civilians is truly a monstrous act. |
They weren't 100% civilian targets I've heard as much as 20% military, war was hell, the Japanese had commited many atrocities themselves during the war and they weren't surrendering. In places like Okinawa there were mass civilain suicides instead of surrendering, or suicide attacks.
Russia was going to be entering the war. Had there been an invation of Japan, Millions of civilians would probably have died, and had Japan been divided like Korea things would have been terrible for those under the soviets.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
