babuks said: USA can make bombs, drop them on innocent people and kill thousands of them, but if Iran even attempts to make one, it will be invaded. |
that is called double standard
babuks said: USA can make bombs, drop them on innocent people and kill thousands of them, but if Iran even attempts to make one, it will be invaded. |
that is called double standard
It was no worse a crime than bombing those cities the old fashioned way.
Love and tolerate.
bazmeistergen said:
|
It was actually Professor Edwin O. Reischauer who said Stimson had known and admired Kyoto ever since his honeymoon to explain his objection to General Leslie Groves decision to bomb Kyoto.
Actually the committee in charge to choose the targets, agreed that the initial use of the weapon should be sufficiently spectacular for its importance to be internationally recognized and Kyoto, as an intellectual center of Japan, had a population "better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon." That's precisely why Stimson objected and cited his belief that the targeting decision “should be governed by the historical position that the United States would occupy after the war" and felt very strongly that "anything that would tend in any way to damage this position would be unfortunate”.
pezus said:
|
They had no idea how radioactivity worked back then. To their knowledge, it was just a big bomb, and it took years for people to understand the consequences. Remember, these were the second and third weapons ever used. And the first was just for testing.
Love and tolerate.
Videogirl said:
It was actually Professor Edwin O. Reischauer who said Stimson had known and admired Kyoto ever since his honeymoon to explain his objection to General Leslie Groves decision to bomb Kyoto. Actually the committee in charge to choose the targets, agreed that the initial use of the weapon should be sufficiently spectacular for its importance to be internationally recognized and Kyoto, as an intellectual center of Japan, had a population "better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon." That's precisely why Stimson objected and cited his belief that the targeting decision “should be governed by the historical position that the United States would occupy after the war" and felt very strongly that "anything that would tend in any way to damage this position would be unfortunate”. |
Honeymoon, yes, I remember now. Classic stuff.
You study/studied history by any chance?
Yes.
www.spacemag.org - contribute your stuff... satire, comics, ideas, debate, stupidy stupid etc.
I support the use of nuclear weapions in this exact situation.
I do not support the use of nuclear weapons in this situation.
Sounds great to say that now doesnt it? When I personally look back on history, I support (is there really any reason to support something that already happened?) the use of Nuclear weapons in their exact situation. Japan would be a MUCH different place today had we not dropped those bombs and I personally love the Japan of Today.
And a side note. Many scholars believe we dropped the nuke for 2 primary reasons.
1) To SAVE lives (think of how many innocent/army lives would be lost on both sides if we had to take those islands inch by inch) and
2) To halt the ambitions of the USSR in mainland Europe. Once the Russian warmachine started, we (the allies) were worried they might not stop it once they met us (the allies) in the middle. Seeing the nuke and the devastation it caused would have surely deterred the Red Army from making any rash decisions.
was it justifiable? it really depends on what side your looking at, in America, where I live, our history demographics kind of teach us it was justifiable around these reasons:
1) it brought a swift end the war
2) lessened the lives of american soildiers(and overall life) if we had invaded Japan
3) stop the atrocities that the Japanese commited in China and around southeast asia( I think the hatred of Japan still rings in Chinese people)
4) and it was somewhat payback for what they did at Pearl Habor
are there reasons valid? no, they can be argued
from Japan's PoV:
1) massive loss of civilian life
2) nuclear radiation plagued the cities for years(I think there's still radiation today)
correct me if I'm wrong, but after Japan surrendered, didn't the U.S. send aid and help rebuild?(just like they did for Germany in both world wars?...again correct if I'm wrong on this too)
war is a horrid event, no one wishes for it to happen(well not me) civilian casualties are a common occurrence of war, Japan is no different(no offense...I like the Japanese culture) is it right? no(well to me) it pains many people when the lost of innocent life is lost, but what can we do? war never affects only the people fighting in it. there really is no right or wrong when it comes to war, everyone who fights or supports believe what they're doing is right, but it's perceived as wrong on the other site.
Salnax said:
|
May I disgress in the 1920s, scientists discovered that radiation exposure caused genetic mutations on a cellular level. When the Manhattan Project began in the 1940s, radiation protection was considered very important. So saying scientists had no knowledge is wrong. On the other hand Japanese didn't knew about radiations and when it started killing them, they thought it was new unknown disease.
hallowedbeeddie said:
you´re trying to justify horror with horror, the japanese were terrible but that doesnt mean that the innocent need to pay. and I´m fully aware of what the japanese did. |
No civilian casualties can be considered anything but a tragedy; but with that said 200,000 lives lost which ended WWII (at least in the pacific) sounds a lot better than the inhumane slaughter of literally millions of innocent Chinese by the Japanese.
The American reason for dropping the bomb was to end the war, the Japanese had no excuse to kill all those people.
Seeing as how the Japanese were almost forced to enter the war, and the millions of casualties (innocent, unarmed mostly casualties), I can't say I'm too happy about them.
My themeforest portfolio: