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

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

TheRealMafoo on 22 September 2010

What do I think? I think it's proof that terrorism works.



Around the Network
Severance on 22 September 2010

Killing is a crime no matter what excuse you make for it, you only kill yourself when you kill someone.



I live for the burn...and the sting of pleasure...
I live for the sword, the steel, and the gun...

- Wasteland - The Mission.

FaRmLaNd on 22 September 2010

I don't know enough about it. But I would never personally support dropping the nukes. However my own emotional and intellectual discust at unleashing such a terrible weapon does not mean given the context that it wasn't the right thing to do.

From what I know it helped end the war prematuraly, which saved many lives, however it left radioactive waste that will be there for a very long time.

I think dropping the bombs did do one important thing however. It showed that mankind was reaching a point where it truly could wipe itself out. That kind of brush with the mortality of our species has a certain utility that can still be felt today.



TheRealMafoo on 22 September 2010
Severance said:

Killing is a crime no matter what excuse you make for it, you only kill yourself when you kill someone.


Killing is wrong. It's not always a crime. And you only kill someone when you kill someone. Lots of people who have killed are very much alive.



KichiVerde on 22 September 2010
bazmeistergen said:
KichiVerde said:


Stalin was a bit of an arse!

American policy was not dictated by a moral desire to stop Stalin though, was it? It was more about US interests.

Stalin a bit of an arse? That is an understatement. He was probably the most evil man that ever lived. He killed milllions, and what's worse he did it mostly to his own people. But back to the close of WW2.

 Ill sum it up for you.

At the Yalta Convention Roosevelt bent over backwards to get Stalin to agree to invade Japanese held territory in North Eastern Asia, and if it came down to it, help invade Japan itself. Russian's invasion, they decided, was to start 90 days after the fall of Germany, whenever that would be. After Germany surrendered the big three got together again at the Potsdam Conference. It was then very clear what Stalin's intentions were. He had it in mind to bring every country that was even remotely within Russia's sphere of influence under his complete control. Truman (Roosevelt had since died) and Churchill both understood that Stalin's policy  would apply to East Asia as well if the war did not end soon. Thus the two made up their minds to have the bomb dropped before Russia's invasion, given that Japan did not already surrender by then. But it was only one of many reasons why they made the decision. If anything it hastened the nuclear attack.

88 days after Germany's fall, on August 6th, 1945, the Enola Gay dropped Little Boy on Hiroshima. Three days later Fat Man fell while Russia launched a full scale attack on Manchuria. On August 15th Japan surrendered. By the time the US landed on Incheon in September the Russians had already claimed all of Manchuria and the northern part of Korea. Manchuria they held on to until Mao Zedong won the Chinese civil war. Stalin then returned it to the Communist Chinese, but not before completely plundering the land. North Korea remained under Soviet control until Kim Il-sung went rouge sometime in the mid 60s. in any event both China and North Korea were screwed for decades to come, as were all the Easter Block countries.

Meanwhile Japan and Western Germany (which were reconstructed by the Allies) went on to become the world's 2nd and 3rd largest economies in the next few decades.

Germany was going to pay the west reparations after the war, but the policy was changed when they realised that it would be better to have a stronger West Germany to support the various allies' 'national' interest. I'm personally glad the Americans national interest was in helping the other allies recover because as a European my countries did well out of US policy.

However, instead of comparing US policy in Europe with Soviet actions we should look at the US actions in the western hemisphere. Things weren't so rosy there.

I don't think Stalin was the most evil person, but that's because I think evil is a useless term. He was clearly mentally imbalanced and his policies were disastrous, but many deaths came as a result of changes to the way the USSR was organised rather than purposeful killings such as in Germany. He may not have cared that these people died, but that is still different to genocide. I do know that he was a racist and a paranoid nationalist madman.

He probably believed that the sacrifice of these people was for a noble purpose (ie the ends justify the means, but in this case he didn't get the end he desired). Some people have justified the atomic bombs with a similar rationale but with a ending that could (but not absolutely) be seen as a better, happier one.

I agree. America's foreign policy in Latin America has been exploitative and horrendous. But there is a difference between exploiting a country and bringing it under direct control, then ruling it with an iron fist. Moreover, while America has contributed to many of Latin America's woes, the majority of the countries' problems stem from Spanish Colonialism, classism, the wealth gap, corruption and so on.

And Stalin was evil. He had no disregard for human life whatsoever, not even that of his own people. You look at other leaders whose leadership caused the death of millions, Hitler, Genghis Khan, Napoleon. These guys committed atrocious acts against their enemies, but they did it for what they believed was the betterment of their own countries.  Not so in the case of Stalin. He was all about control at any cost. He never even thought to choose a clear successor. It was all about him.

You can point out many examples of his cruelty and paranoia, but what gets me is the following. During his meetings with Roosevelt and Churchill he had to use an interpreter because he didnt speak English. After the interpreter had served his purpose Stalin would have the man shot and the body dumped. Straight up cold blooded.





Around the Network
P_chan on 23 September 2010
TheRealMafoo said:
Severance said:

Killing is a crime no matter what excuse you make for it, you only kill yourself when you kill someone.


Killing is wrong. It's not always a crime. And you only kill someone when you kill someone. Lots of people who have killed are very much alive.

but their dead inside silly lol



MDMAniac on 23 September 2010

KichiVerde said:

During his meetings with Roosevelt and Churchill he had to use an interpreter because he didnt speak English. After the interpreter had served his purpose Stalin would have the man shot and the body dumped. Straight up cold blooded.


Man, where did you read it? In Cold War comics?

How it turned out that the intepreter was the same person (V.Pavlov) in both Teheran and Yalta, if he was killed each time?

OMG, now I gotcha! Stalin was so evil, he even created first clones! Such Darth Stalinus he was!



bazmeistergen on 23 September 2010
superchunk said:

1. It was the only option at the time as it saved who knows how many lives of allied soldiers. I think this is proven since Japan's rulers did not immediately surrender after the first bomb. That idea of being unable to surrender was demonstrated after the first bomb when everyone knew how massive the devastation was.

2. Those arguing on moral grounds must realize war in itself isn't moral and innocents die regardless. Therefore the choice in this was us or them and the US military chose them (to die) for obvious reasons.

3. Keep in mind that Japan is the reason US even entered the war.


1. Possibly.

2. True.

3. Very debatable. It was coming. It was just a matter of time. US interests were threatened by Germany as well as Japan. KGeorge Kennan in his American Diplomacy discusses the importance of keeping the UK safe (for trade as well as defensive purposes).



Yes.

www.spacemag.org - contribute your stuff... satire, comics, ideas, debate, stupidy stupid etc.

bazmeistergen on 23 September 2010
KichiVerde said:
bazmeistergen said:
KichiVerde said:


Stalin was a bit of an arse!

American policy was not dictated by a moral desire to stop Stalin though, was it? It was more about US interests.

Stalin a bit of an arse? That is an understatement. He was probably the most evil man that ever lived. He killed milllions, and what's worse he did it mostly to his own people. But back to the close of WW2.

 Ill sum it up for you.

At the Yalta Convention Roosevelt bent over backwards to get Stalin to agree to invade Japanese held territory in North Eastern Asia, and if it came down to it, help invade Japan itself. Russian's invasion, they decided, was to start 90 days after the fall of Germany, whenever that would be. After Germany surrendered the big three got together again at the Potsdam Conference. It was then very clear what Stalin's intentions were. He had it in mind to bring every country that was even remotely within Russia's sphere of influence under his complete control. Truman (Roosevelt had since died) and Churchill both understood that Stalin's policy  would apply to East Asia as well if the war did not end soon. Thus the two made up their minds to have the bomb dropped before Russia's invasion, given that Japan did not already surrender by then. But it was only one of many reasons why they made the decision. If anything it hastened the nuclear attack.

88 days after Germany's fall, on August 6th, 1945, the Enola Gay dropped Little Boy on Hiroshima. Three days later Fat Man fell while Russia launched a full scale attack on Manchuria. On August 15th Japan surrendered. By the time the US landed on Incheon in September the Russians had already claimed all of Manchuria and the northern part of Korea. Manchuria they held on to until Mao Zedong won the Chinese civil war. Stalin then returned it to the Communist Chinese, but not before completely plundering the land. North Korea remained under Soviet control until Kim Il-sung went rouge sometime in the mid 60s. in any event both China and North Korea were screwed for decades to come, as were all the Easter Block countries.

Meanwhile Japan and Western Germany (which were reconstructed by the Allies) went on to become the world's 2nd and 3rd largest economies in the next few decades.

Germany was going to pay the west reparations after the war, but the policy was changed when they realised that it would be better to have a stronger West Germany to support the various allies' 'national' interest. I'm personally glad the Americans national interest was in helping the other allies recover because as a European my countries did well out of US policy.

However, instead of comparing US policy in Europe with Soviet actions we should look at the US actions in the western hemisphere. Things weren't so rosy there.

I don't think Stalin was the most evil person, but that's because I think evil is a useless term. He was clearly mentally imbalanced and his policies were disastrous, but many deaths came as a result of changes to the way the USSR was organised rather than purposeful killings such as in Germany. He may not have cared that these people died, but that is still different to genocide. I do know that he was a racist and a paranoid nationalist madman.

He probably believed that the sacrifice of these people was for a noble purpose (ie the ends justify the means, but in this case he didn't get the end he desired). Some people have justified the atomic bombs with a similar rationale but with a ending that could (but not absolutely) be seen as a better, happier one.

I agree. America's foreign policy in Latin America has been exploitative and horrendous. But there is a difference between exploiting a country and bringing it under direct control, then ruling it with an iron fist. Moreover, while America has contributed to many of Latin America's woes, the majority of the countries' problems stem from Spanish Colonialism, classism, the wealth gap, corruption and so on.

And Stalin was evil. He had no disregard for human life whatsoever, not even that of his own people. You look at other leaders whose leadership caused the death of millions, Hitler, Genghis Khan, Napoleon. These guys committed atrocious acts against their enemies, but they did it for what they believed was the betterment of their own countries.  Not so in the case of Stalin. He was all about control at any cost. He never even thought to choose a clear successor. It was all about him.

You can point out many examples of his cruelty and paranoia, but what gets me is the following. During his meetings with Roosevelt and Churchill he had to use an interpreter because he didnt speak English. After the interpreter had served his purpose Stalin would have the man shot and the body dumped. Straight up cold blooded.



Did you get that from the Robert Service biography?

Stalin did want to make Russia great as well, remember. He was a nationalist (which explains the whole Socialism in One Country stuff). He clearly was utterly nuts, but yeh!



Yes.

www.spacemag.org - contribute your stuff... satire, comics, ideas, debate, stupidy stupid etc.

bazmeistergen on 23 September 2010
MDMAniac said:

KichiVerde said:

During his meetings with Roosevelt and Churchill he had to use an interpreter because he didnt speak English. After the interpreter had served his purpose Stalin would have the man shot and the body dumped. Straight up cold blooded.


Man, where did you read it? In Cold War comics?

How it turned out that the intepreter was the same person (V.Pavlov) in both Teheran and Yalta, if he was killed each time?

OMG, now I gotcha! Stalin was so evil, he even created first clones! Such Darth Stalinus he was!


Darth Stalinus and his young apprentice Lord Berias.



Yes.

www.spacemag.org - contribute your stuff... satire, comics, ideas, debate, stupidy stupid etc.