|
If it was acceptable, as usual, it was the innocents who paid the price. Though just as many
innocent lives would have been lost in a ground war.I knew a former reconnaissance pilot who was
photographing off Japan when they dropped the bomb. He went on to be a doctor. Done many good things
with his life. Not to say there were not as many such men wiped out by Hiroshima, but for such a man
to have died for the megalomania of nations shows the futility of it all. It should have been the
war to end all wars. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yes it was justified. It effectively ended WWII. It saved thousands of American lives. It saved
thousands of Japanese lives. Yes, it did.
Was it ugly? Yep. Was it horrible? Uh-huh. Should we ever do it again? I should hope not. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I believe they did it to defend their people, and would do it again. Tough justice. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I don't know that it was "acceptable" but it certainly did the job it was intended to do, force the
Japanese surrender. I'm not going to say that the loss of life was particularly palatable, but it
is likely that if we had to invade on the ground, there would have been an even greater loss of
life, so in that sense it certainly was justified. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The A-bomb did exactly what it was designed to do, scare the hell out of the soviet union. If a few
hundred thousand innocent people got in the way, too bad. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The atomic bomb is just one more weapon of war. The fire bombing of Tokyo resulted in twice as many
horrible casualties as the use of atomic weapons did. They didn't stop using fire as a weapon...
Look at Viet Nam, where it was the terror weapon of the war. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
The two Atomic bombs did more destruction and killing than a land invasion would have ever tooken.
The Japanese are still suffering from that stupid act. The nuclear radiation has created havoc and
will continue for years to come. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Hidell, I must agree with you, again, like you said in your second paragraph, we killed innocent
civilians to show Japan that we could crush them if we wanted, could we have stopped them by
invasion, probably, but we wanted to flex our muscles and show off to the world. The second we
dropped the A bomb on Japan and purposefully killed those citizens we entered what is known as a
state of total war, this is when a gov't does anything, even kill civilians to win the war. We
entered total war just after defeating Hitler, the man who we all hated and wanted dead, the man who
entered total war to dominate the world. We were against everything he said, and yet we entered
total war just after defeating him. I think the bombing was just a way to tell the world that we
could take on anybody and showed off our nuclear power. |
| |
 123  21 Jul 2008 06:13
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It's clear that the principal reason for using it was to cow the Soviet Union. Is it acceptable to
kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people to make a diplomatic point? No.
Japan was effectively beaten by the time the atomic bombs were used. Its capacity for further
resistance was minimal. No doubt, some US soldiers would have been killed during an occupation. Is
it acceptable to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians to spare a few soldiers? No.
The laws of war require countries to distinguish between civilians and combatants in making an
attack. Indiscriminate use of weapons is a war crime. The two atomic bombings were war crimes, war
crimes no doubt fed by the racist contempt for the yellow man that was nurtured during the Second
World War. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
