Question about Hiroshima and Nagasaki

DOSW

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?

DriftingByTheStorm

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.

???

RolandTD20Kdrummer

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.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

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.

tybird

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?

SilverSeed

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.

SPEEDY MCCREADY

we should have dropped a 3rd bomb....

maybe even a 4th........

tybird

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.

MLC2006

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 Baby

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.

1970RR

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.

tybird

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.

SPEEDY MCCREADY

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........

fuck

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.

tybird

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

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

_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!

BinFrog

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.

cornnifer

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.

MLC2006

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.

catefrances

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.

cornnifer

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: