General Discussions

**ecsuite** · 10-03-2007, 04:19 PM

Or use it in a non or lesser populated area of japan, rather than on 80k civilians? At least the burden of all of those deaths would fall squarely on japan. i dont think the result would have been much different from our end, except that there is a chance, albeit small, that we could have saved those civilian lives.

**CSS4Life** · 10-03-2007, 04:36 PM

It's a sad fact, but Japan wouldn't have given in otherwise.

The Japanese were ruthless and would have fought to the death if there had been an invasion. If the bomb hadn't made such an impact, then the war may have even continued, at least temporarily.

I think it also taught us how destructive it could be, stopping countries from actually using them again

**Learning Newbie** · 10-03-2007, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whym

It's a sad fact, but Japan wouldn't have given in otherwise.

Japan had surrendered before the atomic bombs were dropped, even the first of them.

They just surrendered with 1 condition, that they get to keep their emperor, who was a God in their religion. The United States at the time decided this was unacceptable, and better to use nuclear weapons against civilian population centers than let the Japanese keep their God.

Quote:

Originally Posted by whym

I think it also taught us how destructive it could be, stopping countries from actually using them again

That's a big part of it. America dropped the bomb to pressure the Soviet Union. Notice how much land Russia grabbed up after the end of World War 2 - we saw it going on, we weren't happy about it, we fought them in many proxy wars (Russia invaded Afghanistan, we made nice with Pakistan and trained and armed the Mujahadeen who would go on to become Al Quaeda) and in this cold war climate, the two atomic bombs were used to flex our muscle to scare Stalin, not Japan.

Also the Manhattan Project was a major undertaking. You don't spend millions of dollars (in 1940s money!) on making bombs and then not use them.

**colbyt** · 10-03-2007, 07:09 PM

Unless I mis-read my history books they were advised that we were about to do something never before seen.

**serandfae** · 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Japan had surrendered before the atomic bombs were dropped, even the first of them.

That's debatable, but then why didn't Japan warn the US they were going to bomb Pearl Harbor?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

They just surrendered with 1 condition, that they get to keep their emperor, who was a God in their religion. The United States at the time decided this was unacceptable, and better to use nuclear weapons against civilian population centers than let the Japanese keep their God.

They did let Hirohito live. And Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets. The immediate blast took those out. It was the fallout afterward that got most of the civilian population surrounding those targets. And more civilians died from conventional bombings during that war than from the two nukes even then. War is ugly--WWII is still one of those wars this generation hasn't come to grips with how bloody it really was. And never may.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

...America dropped the bomb to pressure the Soviet Union. Notice how much land Russia grabbed up after the end of World War 2 - we saw it going on, we weren't happy about it, we fought them in many proxy wars (Russia invaded Afghanistan, we made nice with Pakistan and trained and armed the Mujahadeen who would go on to become Al Quaeda) and in this cold war climate, the two atomic bombs were used to flex our muscle to scare Stalin, not Japan.

The US also supported Saddam Hussein against Iran, also through the CIA. Throughout the Cold War and after the US supported a host of dictators, figuring they were better than communists (who would have been equally bloody, but....) And, given that Stalin killed about 12 million of his own people for resisting collectivization (this obviously doen't count war deaths), I doubt he scared that easily. BTW, he said he didn't have to invade the US; after awhile we'd just let ourselves be taken over willingly. Prophetic, wasn't he?

**Learning Newbie** · 10-03-2007, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by serandfae

That's debatable, but then why didn't Japan warn the US they were going to bomb Pearl Harbor?

What does one thing have to do with the other? It's like being attacked by Saudi Arabia and then invading Iraq. We sell ourselves as the (morally) greatest country in the world. You and I are better than the guy who started this thread because we're Americans and he's just an Englishman - that's the advertising. A beacon on the hill. So why would anybody advocate giving up the moral high ground? The best way to defeat your enemy isn't to become as evil as your enemy.

Seriously, that's a logical fallacy way too many people buy into. The same people who think it's not wrong to torture people as long as different people with the same skin color are fighting our soldiers. From Japan to Abu Ghraib.

**colbyt** · 10-03-2007, 07:54 PM

Quote:

The best way to defeat your enemy isn't to become as evil as your enemy.

What you and a lot of "well meaning uninformed people" need to learn is that the sad reality of "carrying a big stick and speaking softly" is that evey now and then you have to beat the **** out something so that the speaking softly works most of the time.

When it comes to the radical "anythings" it is kill or be killed. And I want to express that I put radical Christians who bomb abortion clinics in the same group as the WTC bombers.

**serandfae** · 10-03-2007, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

....So why would anybody advocate giving up the moral high ground? The best way to defeat your enemy isn't to become as evil as your enemy..

No one who goes to war can claim the moral high ground. Just like if someone broke into my house and I shot him dead--the law may be on my side, and I am defending my home, but I've still killed. Even Gahndi said that the worst thing to do when confronted with evil is nothing. Pacifism, to him, was best but not the only recourse, morally speaking. Moral ambiguity simply cannot be avoided.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Seriously, that's a logical fallacy way too many people buy into. The same people who think it's not wrong to torture people as long as different people with the same skin color are fighting our soldiers. From Japan to Abu Ghraib.

And who said the US had the moral high ground, when our government imprisioned Japanese Americans? If you don't think that we could have crossed that line and killed them, then you've just signed America's death warrant. To deny one's own capacity for evil is to succumb to it. You look at history for what it really is and learn from it. There is nothing to fear but fanaticism itself, on both the left and the right; the first required step on either side is the staunch insistence upon being right.

**swiftmed** · 10-04-2007, 07:00 PM

its sad to be honest, a lot of people died unnecessarily, and every country seems to be out to screw the other country over now-a-days

**Learning Newbie** · 10-04-2007, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by serandfae

No one who goes to war can claim the moral high ground. Just like if someone broke into my house and I shot him dead--the law may be on my side, and I am defending my home, but I've still killed. Even Gahndi said that the worst thing to do when confronted with evil is nothing. Pacifism, to him, was best but not the only recourse, morally speaking. Moral ambiguity simply cannot be avoided.

This is a far more intelligent response than I expected. Kudos.

**theinspirer** · 10-05-2007, 12:16 PM

I personally think that US dropped the bomb just to show their superiority . Just to show that they are Super powers. Remember that UK was the Super Power at that point of time. They just overthrew everybody. We are still witnessing that sort non sense still today. They attacked Iraq just for the sake of their own profits. It's just because of the so called 'American Arrogance' and nothing else.