Home› A Moving Train

Question about Hiroshima and Nagasaki

DOSWDOSW Posts: 2,014
edited March 2008 in A Moving Train
Why aren't these bombings considered a travesty? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the thinking seems to be that it was justified because it ended the war. But how can destroying an entire city's worth of civilians ever be justified? The two attacks killed about 140,000 people I think... some soldiers, some civilians.

I don't know, I was just thinking about this recently and it appalls me. Has the horror of it really been covered up, or is there something I'm missing which makes it less nauseating?
It's a town full of losers and I'm pulling out of here to win
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1345678

Comments

  • DriftingByTheStormDriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    the bombings are typicaly "justified" as having averted the need for an invasion of the Japanese mainland.

    Had US troops been needed to invade Japan proper, the death toll would have been astronomical on both sides.

    Keep in mind, Japan was trying to take over the world by force. lol.

    Other than that, i don't think, at least in my schooling, that the bombings were every viewed as anything BUT a tragedy.

    We read several books or short stories about Japan and the atomic bombs, and they were all pretty explicit about how horrible the events were.

    I think you are just asking people, "how come we don't focus on a tragic event of 50+ years ago with more sadness?"

    The answer is in your question, it was 50+ years ago.
    To be honest, outside of The Hitler Channel (history channel), you don't see or hear a lot of discussion about the Holocaust either. That was pretty tragic. But also far removed from the consciousness of the average American these days.

    ???
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • RolandTD20KdrummerRolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    Yes and sadly far more bombs have been dropped by the US to actually dwarf these two events since then.

    There's a good documentary I can refer you to appreciate how much, how very badly, and how many innocent people suffered from this action.

    The argument to it all is that it saved lives.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSunLikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun Posts: 6,097
    war is hell. i dont consider it an atrocity, though I'm sure if you were living there at the time you wouldnt care what it was called.
  • tybirdtybird Posts: 17,388
    Defend Japanese actions prior to those two events. Nanking? Korean sex slaves? Human experimentation? Geneva Convention, what Geneva Convention? The various "Death Marches"?

    Read about Iwo Jima and Okinawa...tiny islands where despite being out-gunned, out-manned and totally surrounded...thousands of Japanese barbarians fought to their death....no surrender sounds so glamorous, does it....then tell me you would send thousands of young men to assault an island with a million of these people living on it. Oh...you would just call off the war because it was the noble thing to do??? No problem with the Japanese re-arming, correct...or re-invading all of their neighbors, eh?
    All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
  • SilverSeedSilverSeed Posts: 336
    tybird wrote:
    Defend Japanese actions prior to those two events. Nanking? Korean sex slaves? Human experimentation? Geneva Convention, what Geneva Convention? The various "Death Marches"?

    Read about Iwo Jima and Okinawa...tiny islands where despite being out-gunned, out-manned and totally surrounded...thousands of Japanese barbarians fought to their death....no surrender sounds so glamorous, does it....then tell me you would send thousands of young men to assault an island with a million of these people living on it. Oh...you would just call off the war because it was the noble thing to do??? No problem with the Japanese re-arming, correct...or re-invading all of their neighbors, eh?

    Dude, I saw Karate Kid 2. Apparently all you need is a bunch of people on your side rattling some drums. And the love of a young Japanese girl.
    When Jesus said "Love your enemies" he probably didn't mean kill them...

    "Sometimes I think I'd be better off dead. No, wait, not me, you." -Deep Toughts, Jack Handy
  • SPEEDY MCCREADYSPEEDY MCCREADY Posts: 25,752
    we should have dropped a 3rd bomb....

    maybe even a 4th........
    Take me piece by piece.....
    Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
  • tybirdtybird Posts: 17,388
    SilverSeed wrote:
    Dude, I saw Karate Kid 2. Apparently all you need is a bunch of people on your side rattling some drums. And the love of a young Japanese girl.
    :p:p:p:D
    All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
  • MLC2006MLC2006 Posts: 861
    It WAS an atrocity. and yes, it was probably more of a show of force to impress the Russians more than anything. But it is also justifiable when they attack a country, even a military base, that is NOT at war. the emperor did not help anything by demanding HIS terms of surrender. I think the administration was too hasty in the use of these weapons and Japan would have eventually surrendered. but IF the only alternative was invading the Japanese mainland, then I don't have as much problem with it. I do think there were probably better targets in Japan (ie, military targets) than those 2 cities.
  • Its Evolution BabyIts Evolution Baby Posts: 849
    Japan was showing no sign of surrender and were using unusual fighting methods like kamikaze missions that showed they were in it for the long haul.

    The US didn't want to drag it out and warned repeatedly that we would drop the bomb if Japan did not surrender. Throw in the fact that they attacked our innocent soldiers in Hawaii first and you can see how this went down.

    It doesn't make it any less a travesty and there is a reason we haven't dropped the bomb since.

    But we weren't totally in the wrong either.
    10/31/2000 (****)
    6/7/2003 (***1/2)
    7/9/2006 (****1/2)
    7/13/2006 (**** )
    4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
    6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
    10/1/2009 LA II (****)
    10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
  • 1970RR1970RR Posts: 281
    DOSW wrote:
    Why aren't these bombings considered a travesty? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the thinking seems to be that it was justified because it ended the war. But how can destroying an entire city's worth of civilians ever be justified? The two attacks killed about 140,000 people I think... some soldiers, some civilians.

    I don't know, I was just thinking about this recently and it appalls me. Has the horror of it really been covered up, or is there something I'm missing which makes it less nauseating?
    It doesnt make it less naseating, but you are missing many other cities that received the same fate without the fanfare of nuclear weapons. Think Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, London. I am sure there are many others.
    The decision to use strategic bombing of civilian populations during WW2 as a tactic of war resulted in hundreds of thousands of innocent dead.
  • tybirdtybird Posts: 17,388
    SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:
    we should have dropped a 3rd bomb....

    maybe even a 4th........
    The only problem with that idea is that we didn't have any other atomic bombs ready. We only had the two.
    All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
  • SPEEDY MCCREADYSPEEDY MCCREADY Posts: 25,752
    tybird wrote:
    The only problem with that idea is that we didn't have any other atomic bombs ready. We only had the two.
    thats a shame isnt it...

    had we only thought it out a little longer........
    Take me piece by piece.....
    Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
  • fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
    DOSW wrote:
    Why aren't these bombings considered a travesty? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the thinking seems to be that it was justified because it ended the war. But how can destroying an entire city's worth of civilians ever be justified? The two attacks killed about 140,000 people I think... some soldiers, some civilians.

    I don't know, I was just thinking about this recently and it appalls me. Has the horror of it really been covered up, or is there something I'm missing which makes it less nauseating?
    I don't understand your logic. The bombings saved the universe. How does that not justify it for you? Had we not done that, Japan would have conquered the world, then moved on to Mars.
  • tybirdtybird Posts: 17,388
    SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:
    thats a shame isnt it...

    had we only thought it out a little longer........
    We can probably blame our lack of foresight on FDR's mistress....:D
    All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSunLikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun Posts: 6,097
    _FiveAgainstOne_ wrote:
    I don't understand your logic. The bombings saved the universe. How does that not justify it for you? Had we not done that, Japan would have conquered the world, then moved on to Mars.

    damnit! my Mars colony must not fall!
  • BinFrogBinFrog MA Posts: 7,309
    tybird wrote:
    The only problem with that idea is that we didn't have any other atomic bombs ready. We only had the two.


    We had a 3rd, but that was it.
    Bright eyed kid: "Wow Typo Man, you're the best!"
    Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
  • cornnifercornnifer Posts: 2,130
    DOSW wrote:
    Why aren't these bombings considered a travesty? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the thinking seems to be that it was justified because it ended the war. But how can destroying an entire city's worth of civilians ever be justified? The two attacks killed about 140,000 people I think... some soldiers, some civilians.

    I don't know, I was just thinking about this recently and it appalls me. Has the horror of it really been covered up, or is there something I'm missing which makes it less nauseating?

    It wasn't justifiable. i don't care what excuses were used.
    "When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
  • MLC2006MLC2006 Posts: 861
    cornnifer wrote:
    It wasn't justifiable. i don't care what excuses were used.

    the fact that they attacked us first isn't an excuse, it's a fact.
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    DOSW wrote:
    Why aren't these bombings considered a travesty? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the thinking seems to be that it was justified because it ended the war. But how can destroying an entire city's worth of civilians ever be justified? The two attacks killed about 140,000 people I think... some soldiers, some civilians.

    I don't know, I was just thinking about this recently and it appalls me. Has the horror of it really been covered up, or is there something I'm missing which makes it less nauseating?


    some of us do consider the bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki heinous. and you are right to be appalled by such actions.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • cornnifercornnifer Posts: 2,130
    MLC2006 wrote:
    the fact that they attacked us first isn't an excuse, it's a fact.
    Its a fact that still doesn't make the use of atomic weapons excusable.

    According to the reasoning i'm getting here, we could end this business in Afghanistan and Iraq right fucking now. Just nuke the fuckers. We'd prolly save a bunch of lives. We could probably close the Bin Laden file once and for all by lobbing a few a-bombs at Pakistan. No more annoying, grainy, poor quality videos or audiotapes. Plus, we would, undoubetly save lives. Fuck, we could have ended Vietnam pretty quick, and actually won plus saved lives had we just nuked 'em.
    :rolleyes:
    "When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
  • DOSWDOSW Posts: 2,014
    catefrances wrote:
    some of us do consider the bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki heinous. and you are right to be appalled by such actions.

    The more I read about it the more appalled I become. Yeah, Japan attacked us first, but at least they attacked a military establishment... I just can't get around the fact that we intentionally killed over a hundred thousand innocent civilians, yet it generally isn't frowned upon. Seems to be more viewed as a 'necessary evil' than a real travesty in US history teachings.

    Like I said, maybe I'm missing something. The reasons in this thread aren't really making me think of it as more acceptable. I really want to view it as a necessary evil, but I just can't seem to get around it...
    It's a town full of losers and I'm pulling out of here to win
  • lalalalaaaaaaaalalalalaaaaaaaa Posts: 2,445
    DOSW wrote:
    Why aren't these bombings considered a travesty? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the thinking seems to be that it was justified because it ended the war. But how can destroying an entire city's worth of civilians ever be justified? The two attacks killed about 140,000 people I think... some soldiers, some civilians.

    I don't know, I was just thinking about this recently and it appalls me. Has the horror of it really been covered up, or is there something I'm missing which makes it less nauseating?
    Yeah...pretty clear cut case of 2 monstrous terrorist attacks...2 of the biggest in history.
  • MLC2006MLC2006 Posts: 861
    cornnifer wrote:
    Its a fact that still doesn't make the use of atomic weapons excusable.

    According to the reasoning i'm getting here, we could end this business in Afghanistan and Iraq right fucking now. Just nuke the fuckers. We'd prolly save a bunch of lives. We could probably close the Bin Laden file once and for all by lobbing a few a-bombs at Pakistan. No more annoying, grainy, poor quality videos or audiotapes. Plus, we would, undoubetly save lives. Fuck, we could have ended Vietnam pretty quick, and actually won plus saved lives had we just nuked 'em.
    :rolleyes:

    Hiroshima/Nagasaki were overkill. as was Pearl Harbor. when you strike first, you really don't get much say in the response that you get. most people like to forget that if most of the Navy fleet had not been out on training exercises that morning, there most likely would've been no to very little US involvement in the war because they would've had no pacific fleet. and with that scenario, the axis powers most likely WOULD have won the war. would that have been a better scenario for you? the response Japan got was not only for what they did do, but also for what they attempted to do, which was paralyze the US military in one feel swoop.
  • cornnifercornnifer Posts: 2,130
    Saturnal wrote:
    Yeah...pretty clear cut case of 2 monstrous terrorist attacks...2 of the biggest in history.

    Shhhhhh... You're not a Black preacher are you? You could cause alot of trouble with this shit. Keep it down.
    "When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    DOSW wrote:
    The more I read about it the more appalled I become. Yeah, Japan attacked us first, but at least they attacked a military establishment... I just can't get around the fact that we intentionally killed over a hundred thousand innocent civilians, yet it generally isn't frowned upon. Seems to be more viewed as a 'necessary evil' than a real travesty in US history teachings.

    Like I said, maybe I'm missing something. The reasons in this thread aren't really making me think of it as more acceptable. I really want to view it as a necessary evil, but I just can't seem to get around it...


    history is written by the victors. all you need know is that those bastards attacked pearl harbour unprovoked. ;):D
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • cornnifercornnifer Posts: 2,130
    MLC2006 wrote:
    Hiroshima/Nagasaki were overkill. as was Pearl Harbor. when you strike first, you really don't get much say in the response that you get. most people like to forget that if most of the Navy fleet had not been out on training exercises that morning, there most likely would've been no to very little US involvement in the war because they would've had no pacific fleet. and with that scenario, the axis powers most likely WOULD have won the war. would that have been a better scenario for you? the response Japan got was not only for what they did do, but also for what they attempted to do, which was paralyze the US military in one feel swoop.
    Thanks for that unsolicited and unneeded history lesson. Your still not justufying the use of atomic weapons, the effects of which are STILL felt by some innocents in parts of Japan.
    "When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
  • lalalalaaaaaaaalalalalaaaaaaaa Posts: 2,445
    MLC2006 wrote:
    when you strike first, you really don't get much say in the response that you get.
    The people in those towns didn't strike anyone. That's the main point imo.
  • dontloseyourheatdontloseyourheat Posts: 483
    One theory is that the bombs were actually a warning to the Soviets. They gave a pretty load message to the entire world that said, "Hey look what we have, now back the fuck the up."
    "Don't lose your inner heat...ever" - EV 5/13/06
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    dontloseyourheat wrote:
    One theory is that the bombs were actually a warning to the Soviets. They gave a pretty load message to the entire world that said, "Hey look what we have, now back the fuck the up."


    this is a theory i actually take a great deal of stock in.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • MLC2006MLC2006 Posts: 861
    Saturnal wrote:
    The people in those towns didn't strike anyone. That's the main point imo.

    neither did the men who spent up to a week suffocating on ships on the ocean floor in Hawaii. but all those innocent people who died, THEIR government was the one that committed the atrocity. you want to place blame, put it at their government's feet.
Sign In or Register to comment.