Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Was it right?

[Inyri]

I don't think any population would, in fact, that's probably why Japan has been calling for global nuclear disarmament for such a long time - they don't want it to happen to other nations.

Yes, but Americans seem particularly shocked when we're directly attacked, like we're under the misguided impression that we're immune to it or something. Other countries are like "hey, you attacked us, go die in a fire." The US is like "omg you attacked us, that's not allowed!"

 

Not that I want us to be attacked or anything, I just think as a nation our overall opinion on that matter is... maybe a little self-centered.

However i'm not going to be an "Anti-American" as i tend to believe that people of a nation should not be judged based on past deeds of a former generation.

Also remember that the majority of the population had no say in that (or any other) military decision. I think a distinct difference needs to be drawn between anti-[insert-country-here] and anti-[insert-country-here]'s government.

[Bee Hoon]

I know. It makes me sad to see people saying stuff like that.

 

I wub our Asian brethren! *gives Bee a big hug*

We be sisters, you and I;)

 

I think all this nationalism is silly anyway. We are all humans, for what it's worth:P

[Astor]

Yes, but Americans seem particularly shocked when we're directly attacked, like we're under the misguided impression that we're immune to it or something. Other countries are like "hey, you attacked us, go die in a fire." The US is like "omg you attacked us, that's not allowed!"

 

Not that I want us to be attacked or anything, I just think as a nation our overall opinion on that matter is... maybe a little self-centered.

 

Now, I dont know overly much about American culture and beliefs, but over here (UK), it does seem occasionally that Americans think, sometimes wrongly, that they *are* the most powerful people in the world.

 

That could possibly be linked to the use of a-bombs.

 

American 'Hey look! We're mighty powerful! See that city?'

 

Non-American 'What city'

 

American 'Exactly'

 

I hope that didn't come across as racist, or offensive, as that wasnt my intent.

[mimartin]

I believe some are making a huge generalization and I personally find it offensive. Not everyone that agrees with the bombing of Japan believes that it was right to do so because the Japanese were not what Americans would consider at the time “white folk.” The President had the responsibility for the American people; the Emperor was responsible for his people. Of course the President of the United States is going to be more concern about the lives of Americans over the people of Japan. Yes, the President even states, after the bombing, that revenge was a motivation behind the bombing, but it was because of Pearl Harbor, not because they were a non-white nation.

 

If you are responsible for one human life, but there are two humans in the room, which one are you going to be more concern about?

 

Yes, but Americans seem particularly shocked when we're directly attacked, like we're under the misguided impression that we're immune to it or something.

Yet, we learn nothing. The next time it happened we were just a shocked. It happened across the pound for years, but when we were attacked it was a complete shock. I figure the next time it happens it will still be a complete shock to us.

[Bee Hoon]

Also remember that the majority of the population had no say in that (or any other) military decision. I think a distinct difference needs to be drawn between anti-[insert-country-here] and anti-[insert-country-here]'s government.

Amen to that. Most people fail to distinguish between the two.

[Ray Jones]

The key word being dead. Can't dodge either if you are dead.

While that is right, I think you know where I'm coming from. ;~~

 

After the surrender there was no need to worry about when the next a-bomb would fall.

Aw, come on. Now you're reaching for straws. After a surrender there is no need to worry about fire bombings either.

 

Comparing peoples suffering is futile. You are not going to get me to say one had it worst than the other. I apologize to all members for bringing the subject up.

OK.

 

 

Funny, mankind had the war to end all wars produce the horrors of gas weapons, then we turned around and had another world war where we invented new weapons of horrors to kill and destroy each other.

It had to come this way, especially because after millenniums of having enough space on earth to go somewhere else, earth finally became to small. The lessons of the world wide wars were inevitable.

 

Yet what have we learned nothing, we still wage war and we are still looking for the new horrific weapon to afflict damage onto our enemy.

I don't think so. Among other things, we have learned that nuclear weapons are of no practical use, especially because they destroy more than the enemy. And we have learned that the simple act of occupying land is not of much use either.

[Bee Hoon]

I don't think so. Among other things, we have learned that nuclear weapons are of no practical use, especially because they destroy more than the enemy. And we have learned that the simple act of occupying land is not of much use either.

Learning's all well and good, but pretty pointless if you don't act on it:/

[Ray Jones]

Some do, some don't. It's more than the "nobody does" from a hundred years ago, and shows at least a tendency.

[mimartin]

I don't think so. Among other things, we have learned that nuclear weapons are of no practical use, especially because they destroy more than the enemy.

Have we? Then why are countries still trying to develop nuclear weapons?

And we have learned that the simple act of occupying land is not of much use either.[/Quote] Oh I hope you are correct about this one.

[Inyri]

Have we? Then why are countries still trying to develop nuclear weapons?

Because other countries are still afraid of being nuked?

[mur'phon]

What bugs me most about the bombing is the unwillingness of the allies to compromise. They insisted on an unconditonal surender without even trying to negotiate a compromise both sides could live with. Yes, the Japanese terms where unaceptable to the allies, but so where the allies terms to the japanese. No atempts to make a deal before the first bomb, and not even after it, when the japanese would probably acept far harsher terms. Did the droping of the bombs "save lives"? Possibly, but we'll never know since no atempts where made to make a deal.

 

@Inyri: I'm even "worse" than you, I'm a human nothing more.

 

@Bee: Must be anoying to have a nationalist government, though having them loose their supermajoroty is a start.

[Inyri]

@Inyri: I'm even "worse" than you, I'm a human nothing more.

 

@Bee: Must be anoying to have a nationalist government, though having them loose their supermajoroty is a start.

I think if more people took to that kind of thinking, the world would be a better place.

[Ray Jones]

Have we? Then why are countries still trying to develop nuclear weapons?

Yes, we, mankind, have. Unfortunately, some nutters did not and chose to give in to penis envy. However, as Bee Hoon pointed out, learning does not mean doing.

 

Oh I hope you are correct about this one.

My excuse is, learning is an ongoing process.

[Bee Hoon]

@Bee: Must be anoying to have a nationalist government' date=' though having them loose their supermajoroty is a start.[/quote'] *is impressed* Your general knowledge is goood:) Haha, yeah, but their nationalism was...pretty dumb:/ Anyhoo, it's off topic here, so we shall discuss it further elsewhere, if it so pleases us.

 

Funny thing: everyone comes into this thread and someone seems to be able to sway anyone to the other side:P

[mimartin]

They insisted on an unconditonal surender without even trying to negotiate a compromise both sides could live with.[/Quote] Has anyone ever accused FDR or Churchill of not being hard headed? That hard headedness served the war effort well' date=' but was a disservice to Japan.

No atempts to make a deal before the first bomb, and not even after it, when the japanese would probably acept far harsher terms. [/Quote] The Allies and the American’s considered the Post Declaration to be their terms for the surrender for Japan. So publically they made their offer and publically Japan rejected it in a radio broadcast without making a public counteroffer. The Allies knew that Japan would never agree to give up their Emperor, and the Allies were not for allowing him to remain in power. The sad part is after the war, although stripped of all power, MacArthur allowed the title of Emperor to remain. Would the Japanese have agreed to the terms if we would have told them up front that the Emperor would be allowed to remain as a figure head?

[jonathan7]

Because other countries are still afraid of being nuked?

 

The one thing the Nukes did was stop a Vietnam/Iraq occuring, not that I actually agree with them; if the A-bomb had to be dropped they should of bombed an area that wasn't populated to show the Japanese how powerful the bomb was, and only after that done anything else. Unfortunatly I think some in the administration of the time wanted to test out their new toy, and have an example of power shown to the Soviets.

 

As for nationalism, its just a beaten road on the way to tyranny. I think generally nations are evil, some less so than others. We in the west, are not civilised, we talk about democracy, but when a democracy yeilds a result we don't like we don't recognize it, and worse still we support barbaric regimes such as Saudi Arabia as it serves out interests to do so.

[Astor]

It wasn't about the position of Emporer, IIRC. It also had a lot to do with the preservation of Kokutai, the Japanese national identity.

 

I believe that the Emporer was asked if the war would continue if the Kokutai was removed, and he replied 'of course'.

 

I should mention that Kokutai also defines the position of Emporer, but it is also much more.

[Rev7]

If we have no other choice, and we have to bomb a city filled with civilians for some reason, it would be best if the weapon killed the people in a split second. A quick and painless death is better than a slow and agonizing death, even if it the same result- death in the end. Slow deaths to innocent civilians is inhumane... I have no intention of killing innocent civilians any time soon though...

As Ray Jones probably pointed out radiation was big. Yes, death would be quick and painless for some. People that were just far enough away to survive the blast recieved some brutal radiation burns. Their skin turned black. That is really just the start of the 'side effects'.

 

NOTE: A lot of what I just said contained information on a History Channel documentary on the atomic bombings in Japan.

 

Nationalism sucks, don't you think?

Well now, that depends on where you live.

[Tommycat]

Well if we had the knowledge we have now about the atomic bomb, we likely wouldn't have used it. But then again, with the knowledge we have now, we can have a huge bomb without the radiation(Daisy Cutter/MOAB).

 

No weapon is morally right in it's use. But then it is possible to justify that use. A good example is it is immoral to kill someone. It is justifiable to kill a man to prevent him from killing other people(say a person shooting people at random from a clock tower).

[Rev7]

No weapon is morally right in it's use. But then it is possible to justify that use. A good example is it is immoral to kill someone. It is justifiable to kill a man to prevent him from killing other people(say a person shooting people at random from a clock tower).

I agree. I think that it all depends on the situation.

[Web Rider]

As Ray Jones probably pointed out radiation was big. Yes, death would be quick and painless for some. People that were just far enough away to survive the blast recieved some brutal radiation burns. Their skin turned black. That is really just the start of the 'side effects'.

 

Your skin won't turn black(unless you mean charred), from radiation exposure from a nuclear bomb. The radiation put off from a nuclear device is not UV radiation, which is what reacts in your cells to cause pigmentation.

[SilentScope001]

Would the Japanese have agreed to the terms if we would have told them up front that the Emperor would be allowed to remain as a figure head?

 

Again, the problem would be that if the US offered those terms up front, then the Japanese could think they could fight for even better surrender terms. The war would continue regardless.

[mimartin]

Again, the problem would be that if the US offered those terms up front, then the Japanese could think they could fight for even better surrender terms. The war would continue regardless.

Wasn't the Japanese already doing that? Publicly they ignored the Allies offer, yet sent a secret envoy to Russia to ask them to be intermediaries in surrender talks. Of course, Russia put them off for a while until Stalin finally replied with a declaration of war on Japan.

[Rev7]

Your skin won't turn black(unless you mean charred), from radiation exposure from a nuclear bomb. The radiation put off from a nuclear device is not UV radiation, which is what reacts in your cells to cause pigmentation.

That is probably what I meant. I haven't seen the show in a little while. It most likely was charred, because I remember that the documantary said that when the victims that survived the initial blast, went to go find water, they found the water to be black because people HAD to get the black off. Thus there was no drinking water. It started to rain and the stuck out there tongue for the water. I don't quite know what happened, it was either the water was good, or it only burned and made everything worse. The latter probably due to the radiation. I really don't remember though...

[Jae Onasi]

The skin could have been charred from the heat or fire. If that was the case, anything larger than a small burn usually lead to death within hours or a couple days from fluid loss/shock or infection.

 

Radiation in the doses that the bomb victims received was high enough to damage bone marrow, which makes our blood and clotting cells. Without enough platelets, people would have had problems with bad bruising (among other things). That may have contributed to the blackened appearance, but without seeing what Rev7 saw, I can't say for sure.

 

We didn't know much about the effects of radiation on the body, particularly long term--our medical technology just wasn't far enough along at that point. We certainly didn't know it on a large scale. Radiation wasn't being used in medicine except for x-rays. I talked to a radiology tech today who pointed out to me that the only long-term study of that level of exposure on that large a group of people was done on the bomb survivors, and that's really the only study. Obviously it would be unethical to expose normal healthy people to that level of radiation in order to study the effects. The largest number of people receiving high doses of radiation today usually receive it for cancer, and it is very difficult to design studies since it would be hard to factor out the cancer or chemo as contributers to cell damage.

 

Again you can't apply 2008 medical knowledge to 1945 medicine. We just didn't know these effects then like we do now.

 

Even if we did know then what we know now, Truman might have dropped the bombs. He knew he was going to have large numbers of casualties no matter what choice he made. He had to opt for the choice that was going to cause overall fewer deaths--particularly to the Allied side of the war.

 

Edit--the blackness could have been from plain old dirt. Bombs produce huge amounts of dust, and very few people had central air (or even homes) to filter out the dust.

 

Edit 2-- Info on radiation sickness.