August 6, 1945

EvilToasterElf · August 2006

This Sunday commemorates the day the first atomic bomb was dropped 2 hours north of my present habitation.

But, the real reasons for dropping the bomb are still under debate. Whether it was truly to bring about the capitulation of Japan, half-motivated by revenge over Pearl Harbor, tortured POW's, and heavy marine losses at Iwa Jima and Okinowa

or...

That it was the first shot in the Cold War, aimed specifically at curtailling Stalin's lust for more territory in Western Europe, and the desire to keep communism from "threatening" capitalism across the planet.

There is plenty of evidence on both sides, but the evidence we don't hear is that Japan was already in the process of capitulation, that terms of surrender were already offered by Hirohito, but the Japanese terms included keeping the Emperor, and was not part of the terms of our "unconditional surrender."

However, even after the two atomic bombs, even after the unconditional surrender, Hirohito was allowed to retain his position until 1989.

It's a topic worthy of discussion, considering that these bombs have led to the policy of going to pre-emptive war to prevent others from acquiring the same bomb.

Ahnimus · August 2006

There is also another point of view that it was an experiment by the US to test the A-Bomb in a real life scenario. Either way it was a bad idea. I've brought Hiroshima and Nagasaki up several times on this board.

dkst0426 · August 2006

Ahnimus wrote:

There is also another point of view that it was an experiment by the US to test the A-Bomb in a real life scenario. Either way it was a bad idea. I've brought Hiroshima and Nagasaki up several times on this board.

Sending in American troops for a ground invasion that would've taken years and killed literally millions more would've been far better, right?

sonicreducer · August 2006

my little sister's 7th birthday is on sunday. the party is on saturday.

Pickr · August 2006

It's truly sad, all the people that had nothing to do with that war who did not even have a chance, just vaporized...disgusting.

RainDog · August 2006

dkst0426 wrote:

Sending in American troops for a ground invasion that would've taken years and killed literally millions more would've been far better, right?

Years?

Millions?

Literally?

truroute · August 2006

*sigh*

Byrnzie · August 2006

dkst0426 wrote:

Sending in American troops for a ground invasion that would've taken years and killed literally millions more would've been far better, right?

Why would that have been necessary? Do you know anything about this topic? The Japanese army had been largely destroyed, to the point that Japan no longer had a functioning army to speak of. The dropping of the A-bombs was simply a way of the U.S shouting to the world that it was now a major superpower, stepping in on the coat-tails of the Russians who had been responsible for defeating the German army and who had made the greatest sacrifice.
The strategical gains the U.S had made during the years 1939 - 1941 when bribing Britain into giving up large chunks of it's terrirtory all over the world in return for supplying Britain with food also helped.
The day that America dropped the first atomic bomb on Japan was the day America made it's Faustian pact with the Devil.

chopitdown · August 2006

EvilToasterElf wrote:

This Sunday commemorates the day the first atomic bomb was dropped 2 hours north of my present habitation.

But, the real reasons for dropping the bomb are still under debate. Whether it was truly to bring about the capitulation of Japan, half-motivated by revenge over Pearl Harbor, tortured POW's, and heavy marine losses at Iwa Jima and Okinowa

or...

That it was the first shot in the Cold War, aimed specifically at curtailling Stalin's lust for more territory in Western Europe, and the desire to keep communism from "threatening" capitalism across the planet.

There is plenty of evidence on both sides, but the evidence we don't hear is that Japan was already in the process of capitulation, that terms of surrender were already offered by Hirohito, but the Japanese terms included keeping the Emperor, and was not part of the terms of our "unconditional surrender."

However, even after the two atomic bombs, even after the unconditional surrender, Hirohito was allowed to retain his position until 1989.

It's a topic worthy of discussion, considering that these bombs have led to the policy of going to pre-emptive war to prevent others from acquiring the same bomb.

I'd say it makes for interesting discussion. The bomb was used to help end the war and it did. Are there secondary effects from the bomb dropping...there probably are.

also, if there is evidence we don't hear about..how did you learn of it? not trying to be an ass with that question.

Other countries are nuclear. Every country with a nuke should be monitored but there are certain countries that I don't want to have a nuke. The reason the nuke worked so well is b/c no one else had it. Now a lot of people have them and I don't think that the countries that have them currently would use them

robbie · August 2006

dkst0426 wrote:

Sending in American troops for a ground invasion that would've taken years and killed literally millions more would've been far better, right?

your right!!!!! and anyone at war with the united states should drop nukes if they got'em in new york, l.a. and d.c. to avoid a long drawn out ground war as well. right????????

Ahnimus · August 2006

chopitdown wrote:

I'd say it makes for interesting discussion. The bomb was used to help end the war and it did. Are there secondary effects from the bomb dropping...there probably are.

also, if there is evidence we don't hear about..how did you learn of it? not trying to be an ass with that question.

Other countries are nuclear. Every country with a nuke should be monitored but there are certain countries that I don't want to have a nuke. The reason the nuke worked so well is b/c no one else had it. Now a lot of people have them and I don't think that the countries that have them currently would use them

I don't think it worked very well. But I've visited a lot of Japanese websites dedicated to it. I've also seen a dozen documentaries on it. Pretty disgusting stuff.

lalalalaaaaaaaa · August 2006

The reasons why the bombs were dropped are surely important, but I think it's more important to look at it in an honest way. When you do that, it's clear that this was an extremely brutal terrorist attack...an attack on civilians to scare and influence their government. That's terrorism.

This brings up the more interesting question of "is terrorism justifiable in any way?" I personally don't think so, but obviously many people do...interestingly enough, many of those same people condemn things like the 9/11 attacks as not justifiable in any way.

Pickr · August 2006

Saturnal wrote:

The reasons why the bombs were dropped are surely important, but I think it's more important to look at it in an honest way. When you do that, it's clear that this was an extremely brutal terrorist attack...an attack on civilians to scare and influence their government. That's terrorism.

This brings up the more interesting question of "is terrorism justifiable in any way?" I personally don't think so, but obviously many people do...interestingly enough, many of those same people condemn things like the 9/11 attacks as not justifiable in any way.

I think you have to delve more deeply into the first part of your post and define what "terrorism" is...Personally I feel it is a tactic to instill fear in people that can be done by threat of violence alone. To me that is a terrorist act...ie..threatening to blow up abortion clinics.

RockinInCanada · August 2006

I hate the fact the "bomb" was ever made......I hate the whole concept even more because two got used....

chopitdown · August 2006

Ahnimus wrote:

I don't think it worked very well. But I've visited a lot of Japanese websites dedicated to it. I've also seen a dozen documentaries on it. Pretty disgusting stuff.

it was disgusting stuff, no arguments. But it did help end the war / cement the japanese defeat depending on your opinion of necessity and possibly with fewer casualties...we'll NEVER know the answer to that one, so let's not even go down that road.

RockinInCanada · August 2006

Pickr wrote:

I think you have to delve more deeply into the first part of your post and define what "terrorism" is...Personally I feel it is a tactic to instill fear in people that can be done by threat of violence alone. To me that is a terrorist act...ie..threatening to blow up abortion clinics.

Dropping a A-Bomb does not create fear?

Pickr · August 2006

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

Dropping a A-Bomb does not create fear?

I think it created worldwide fear...I am just pointing out that terrorism is very subjective, many see it in different ways..

RockinInCanada · August 2006

Pickr wrote:

I think it created worldwide fear...I am just pointing out that terrorism is very subjective, many see it in different ways..

I think there is no bigger threat and no bigger fear than an A-bomb and regardless of it's inital use any country that would currently use it should be deemed criminals.....all these weapons should be abolished.....

lalalalaaaaaaaa · August 2006

Pickr wrote:

I think you have to delve more deeply into the first part of your post and define what "terrorism" is...Personally I feel it is a tactic to instill fear in people that can be done by threat of violence alone. To me that is a terrorist act...ie..threatening to blow up abortion clinics.

I think the same fear can be instilled from both threats and terrorist acts, but they're still very different things. It's pretty much accepted that terrorism involves violent action against civilians to scare them and influence their government. The threat of violence and actually carrying it out are very different. It's like when you get really mad at someone and say "oh I could kill him!", even though you'd never actually do it.

monkey spanker · August 2006

thats a great anniversary. we ended wwII on that day. i'll be sure to drink a cold one in celebration and rememberance.

dkst0426 · August 2006

Byrnzie wrote:

Why would that have been necessary? Do you know anything about this topic? The Japanese army had been largely destroyed, to the point that Japan no longer had a functioning army to speak of.

Do YOU fucking know anything about this topic? Japanese pride dictated that they needed to be brought to their knees. Hirohito WANTED an empire stretching from Japan to the southern tip of the Indonesian islands, damn whomever got in their way, and they were ruthless on their march south. Both my grandfathers and most of my father's side of the family who still lived in southern China at the time were wiped out when the Japanese began massacring Chinese.

So while you talk about weeping for Japanese and their families, I, and millions and billions of other Chinese around the world today, THANK the US for doing what it took to bring those atrocities to an end.

August 6, 1945

Comments

Categories