Question about Hiroshima and Nagasaki

DOSW

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...

lalalalaaaaaaaa

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.

MLC2006

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.

cornnifer

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.

catefrances

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.

cornnifer

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.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

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.

dontloseyourheat

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."

catefrances

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.

MLC2006

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.

MLC2006

cornnifer wrote:

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.

yeah, far be it from me to state facts to get in the way of your anti-America rhetoric. but the fact remains, you attack somebody without provocation, you don't get to dictate what kind of response you should get. like I said, the bombings were overkill. but Japan committed the first atrocity, not the US.

and what's more, the bombs were going to be dropped on someone at some point. if nothing more so there would be no non-believers on the power of this technology. not saying they SHOULD have been, but they WOULD have been. once they were created, that end was unavoidable. so would you have rather the US dropped the bomb on 275,000 innocent Russians? 275,000 Germans? or maybe Russia dropping it on 275,000 Americans (this is my bet on how you really feel)? or maybe on 275,000 Chinese or Vietnamese? the fact is, once it was created, it was going to be used for everybody to see. Japan was the target. they (their government) committed an atrocity against not only the US, but against innocent people of other nations. it's a sad chapter of history, no doubt, but the blame is missplaced.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

MLC2006 wrote:

THEIR government was the one that committed the atrocity. you want to place blame, put it at their government's feet.

haha I can't even get into how ridiculous this statement is cuz I gotta go to bed. But maybe another time..

MLC2006

Saturnal wrote:

haha I can't even get into how ridiculous this statement is cuz I gotta go to bed. But maybe another time..

no, maybe not. I already know your line of thinking and can sum it up in 3 words.....everything's America's fault. it's not a new concept on this board. Thanks.

DOSW

The men at Pearl Harbor may have been struck first, but they're military men... volunteers for the armed forces. In no way is a soldier's death less tragic than a civilians, but still.... you get the idea.

PJ_Saluki

Yeah, gosh, those poor Japanese. I mean, look at them now. Their miniscule population and dirt-poor economy are the lasting testaments to the big, bad Americans bombing their cities.

It's easy to sit back in 2008 and gnash one's teeth while criticizing the people who kept the world (relatively) free. It's also easy to sit in the comfort of one's home and bemoan the fact that America is such a bad place filled with bad people who do bad things.

I think people are forgetting just how crazy and fucked up the Japanese were. They were the bad guys in the war, not us. If we didn't stop them they would have exterminated all non-Japanese.

Don't waste your guilt on what happened in Japan. They got what they deserved.

And yes, I understand that children and innocents perished in the attacks, but I don't care. If it came down to a five-year-old girl or my grandfather, well, I don't guess I need to tell you which person I would pick and I'm pretty sure it works out that way on the other side, too.

Tell ya what: If you think it's so indefensible that we dropped nukes on the Japanese, go down to a VFW and talk to a Pacific Theater of Operations veteran and ask them about undeserving of the bomb Japan was. I've got a feeling they might disagree with your armchair quarterbacking after the fact.

You should be kissing the asses of the men who made what had to have been the toughest decision of their lives. Without their cowardly act, you'd probably not exist and the world would be one giant slave state.

IWillLiveForeve

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's fucking war. It isn't suppose to be appealing. Was it sad and a 'travesty'? Sad, yes. A travesty? No. Bad parties are a 'travesty'. Nuking two cites? That is 'fucked'? But guess what? That is what the situation was at the time. You want to see something really fucked up? Google 'Dresden bombing'.

Commy

IWillLiveForeve wrote:

It's fucking war. It isn't suppose to be appealing. Was it sad and a 'travesty'? Sad, yes. A travesty? No. Bad parties are a 'travesty'. Nuking two cites? That is 'fucked'? But guess what? That is what the situation was at the time. You want to see something really fucked up? Google 'Dresden bombing'.

exactly. we need to realize how fucked up dropping nukes on civilian cities actually is, and also take a look at the fire bombing of dresden and other major civilian bombing campaigns to hopefully come to the conclusion that war is fucking hell, unnecessary and barbaric. There should be no place for it in the world today.

Admiral William Leary, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called the atomic bomb, "a barbarous weapon", also saying, "the Japanese were already defeated and willing to surrender".
Terms of surrender had been offered, diplomatic channels were being pursued, the war was over. So the US was not so much ending the world war as they were starting the cold war, using a terrible weapon on hundreds of thousands of human beings.

Kann

MLC2006 wrote:

yeah, far be it from me to state facts to get in the way of your anti-America rhetoric. but the fact remains, you attack somebody without provocation, you don't get to dictate what kind of response you should get. like I said, the bombings were overkill. but Japan committed the first atrocity, not the US.

and what's more, the bombs were going to be dropped on someone at some point. if nothing more so there would be no non-believers on the power of this technology. not saying they SHOULD have been, but they WOULD have been. once they were created, that end was unavoidable. so would you have rather the US dropped the bomb on 275,000 innocent Russians? 275,000 Germans? or maybe Russia dropping it on 275,000 Americans (this is my bet on how you really feel)? or maybe on 275,000 Chinese or Vietnamese? the fact is, once it was created, it was going to be used for everybody to see. Japan was the target. they (their government) committed an atrocity against not only the US, but against innocent people of other nations. it's a sad chapter of history, no doubt, but the blame is missplaced.

We are all everly thankful to the us and the proud americans for saving the world's ass in 1945. But the necessity of using bombs whose effects are still felt 60 years later is questionnable. They probably could have gotten the same effect with time and regular warfare. The bombs seemed mostly like a mix of payback and show-off on the american part, and the results are condemnable, whatever your patriotic feelings.
Btw, questionning the acts of your historical leader does not mean you wish 275,000 of your fellow citizens were dead.

Collin

MLC2006 wrote:

yeah, far be it from me to state facts to get in the way of your anti-America rhetoric. but the fact remains, you attack somebody without provocation, you don't get to dictate what kind of response you should get. like I said, the bombings were overkill. but Japan committed the first atrocity, not the US.

Brilliant logic. How about instead of locking up killers we kill them? And their families, their children, their brothers and sisters. We go to the neighbours and we shoot a few people as well.

A killer doesn't get to dictate what kind of response he should get.

Collin

PJ_Saluki wrote:

Don't waste your guilt on what happened in Japan. They got what they deserved.

And yes, I understand that children and innocents perished in the attacks, but I don't care.

It sickens me that you don't even care. It's one thing to say it was something that had to be done (there's no way any of us can know what would've happened if they hadn't dropped the bombs) but it's another thing to say innocent people deserved to die, and to say you don't even care. It's disgusting.