By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - What's your point of view in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bomb?

forest-spirit on 19 September 2010
darthdevidem01 said:

It was a BIG crime

But what if it hadn't been done and what if the war had been prolonged?

In terms of the number of deaths, would the number of deaths that take place if the war had been prolonged MATCH the number of deaths that took place in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings?

More specifically would the number of CIVILIAN deaths that take place if the war had been prolonged MATCH the number of CIVILIAN deaths that took place in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings?

Then you come down to the matter of the effects of the nuclear bombings on future generations, we know there have been bad effects due to the radiation.

Finally it all depends on perspective.......IF you were in a American family who's father/brother was killed if the war had been prolonged you'd say, "DAMN IT why didn't they drop those A-Bomb's on Hiroshima/Nagasaki......at least my father/brother would be alive!"

If you were in a Japanese family who's relatives died in the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings and even if some survived you could see their children having defects due to the radiation you'd always say, "I would prefer it if the war had been prolonged instead of my family being affected like this"

There's no real answer to questions like these, but whatever happened was BAD.....its not a matter of right or wrong, this kind of like a grey area.


Ah, that's a great post!



Around the Network
GodOfWar_3ever on 19 September 2010

Anyone who supports this....well, I've got no words...

Maybe if they A-Bombed a huge military complex stretching for several thousand square km, I might (keyword here is might) be OK with it.....but killing of innocent civilians and bringing forth effects still felt today....utterly unacceptable.



darthdevidem01 on 19 September 2010
forest-spirit said:
darthdevidem01 said:

It was a BIG crime

But what if it hadn't been done and what if the war had been prolonged?

In terms of the number of deaths, would the number of deaths that take place if the war had been prolonged MATCH the number of deaths that took place in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings?

More specifically would the number of CIVILIAN deaths that take place if the war had been prolonged MATCH the number of CIVILIAN deaths that took place in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings?

Then you come down to the matter of the effects of the nuclear bombings on future generations, we know there have been bad effects due to the radiation.

Finally it all depends on perspective.......IF you were in a American family who's father/brother was killed if the war had been prolonged you'd say, "DAMN IT why didn't they drop those A-Bomb's on Hiroshima/Nagasaki......at least my father/brother would be alive!"

If you were in a Japanese family who's relatives died in the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings and even if some survived you could see their children having defects due to the radiation you'd always say, "I would prefer it if the war had been prolonged instead of my family being affected like this"

There's no real answer to questions like these, but whatever happened was BAD.....its not a matter of right or wrong, this kind of like a grey area.


Ah, that's a great post!





All hail the KING, Andrespetmonkey

gurglesletch on 19 September 2010
forest-spirit said:

Of course it's a crime. Massacring hundreds of thousands is a severe crime no matter your intentions.


People have put estimates that if the US invaded Japan the casualties would be 1 million




Get your Portable ID!

oldschoolfool on 19 September 2010
GodOfWar_3ever said:

Anyone who supports this....well, I've got no words...

Maybe if they A-Bombed a huge military complex stretching for several thousand square km, I might (keyword here is might) be OK with it.....but killing of innocent civilians and bringing forth effects still felt today....utterly unacceptable.



war is utterly unacceptable. It was one of those caught between a rock and hard place things.



Around the Network
Stefan.De.Machtige on 19 September 2010

What's there to say? It was the best military solution.



In the wilderness we go alone with our new knowledge and strength.

Wagram on 19 September 2010
oldschoolfool said:
forest-spirit said:

Of course it's a crime. Massacring hundreds of thousands is a severe crime no matter your intentions.



It was a neccessary evil. War itself should be a crime. Nobody wishes for these things.


No it wasn't. There was no need to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilian people.



forest-spirit on 19 September 2010

This is just my opinion but I don't think saving American lives was the sole reason for using nukes. I think one of the main reasons was being able to capture Japan before Sovjet. Of course, that may have led to Japan becoming a second Korea.



oldschoolfool on 19 September 2010
Wagram said:
oldschoolfool said:
forest-spirit said:

Of course it's a crime. Massacring hundreds of thousands is a severe crime no matter your intentions.



It was a neccessary evil. War itself should be a crime. Nobody wishes for these things.


No it wasn't. There was no need to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilian people.

Research if for yourself,I'm not going to get into a whole debate about it.



yanamaster on 19 September 2010
GodOfWar_3ever said:

Anyone who supports this....well, I've got no words...

Maybe if they A-Bombed a huge military complex stretching for several thousand square km, I might (keyword here is might) be OK with it.....but killing of innocent civilians and bringing forth effects still felt today....utterly unacceptable.


well said and all that jazz but words only are just that, words.

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. 



If i lose access to this profile as well....I'm done with this site.....You've been warned!!.....whoever you are...

Happy Wii60 user. Me and my family are a perfect example of where hardcore meets casual and together mutate into something awesome.