Dropping two atomic bombs seems like overkill just so we don't have to hear some bitching.
Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima - 65th Anniversary (6.8.2010)
- Thread starter JRS
- Start date
Dropping two atomic bombs seems like overkill just so we don't have to hear some bitching.
If it indeed doesn't qualify as a warcrime, like many of you say, the US would have no problems in letting an international jury decide about that. All I'm saying is that the same rules should apply for everyone.
Just imagine Japan had dropped bombs on two US cities to force the US to surrender, killing MUCH more civilians in the process than military personel. It really doesn't matter who started the war first, and it doesn't matter how long the war already lasted.
Just imagine Japan had dropped bombs on two US cities to force the US to surrender, killing MUCH more civilians in the process than military personel. It really doesn't matter who started the war first, and it doesn't matter how long the war already lasted.
Are you reading what has been posted in this thread, or just ignoring it? I ask because nunerous posts HAVE placed the event IN THE CONTEXT OF THE TIME; and not extracted it with a dispassonate, idealistic view (60 years after the fact) of how the end of the war COULD have been handled, IF they knew in 1945 what we know now in 2010.
Given what had happened to start the Pacific war, what U.S. troops had endured during the war (and battles to take Japanese held islands back); and the signals the Japanese themselves were sending (ie their reply to the Postdam Declaration); ad hell, the fact that they DIDN'T sue for surrendur after the first atom bomb was dropped (and this was BECAUSE the Japanese military believed that it was not possible to build more than one; and Hirohito was WITH them at that time in not wanting to capitulate. It WAS the second bomb that convinced Hirohito); whike yes, it was a controversial decision - given the U.S> WWII experience against the Japanese military, it was hardly 'overkill'.
Have you? It appears not. Because if you had you'd have seen the link that shows military leaders AT THE TIME were against the dropping of the bomb. So it's not just us "idealists" in the future who are against it.
And Truman was well aware that the Japanese were getting ready to surrender so don't tell me he didn't know certain things. Truman knew a lot and he knew that the bombs were absolutely not needed to end the war.
You don't think killing millions of civilians in a torn apart decimated country is overkill? Interesting.
The U.S. didn't ignore it - it actively provoked the Pearl Harbor attack.
Like it or not, it was necessary. Both sides lost thousands of men while we took island after island. Okinawa alone took ~250K. 100K were civilians killed in the fighting or committing suicide. I've been to Saipan and the civilians there threw themselves off cliffs. Imagine what it would have been like to try and take Japan.
We did tell them we had a new powerful weapon. We did give them a list of targets. We now know they were working on their own bomb. So nothing short of unconditional surrender would work. Look at the mess we've had to deal with leaving despots in power of N Korea and Iraq.
We did tell them we had a new powerful weapon. We did give them a list of targets. We now know they were working on their own bomb. So nothing short of unconditional surrender would work. Look at the mess we've had to deal with leaving despots in power of N Korea and Iraq.
It's also funny when people try to justify Hiroshima & Nagasaki with Pearl Harbor (I just had that conversation). Pearl Harbor was an attack on a solely military target, on aircraft, battleships, cruisers, destroyers, shipyard, fuel and torpedo storage. Only 57 civilians were killed against 2,402 military.
Still trying to find valid figures for Hiroshima, but one article I found speaks of 110,000 civilians vs. 12,000 military personel until 1950.
Still trying to find valid figures for Hiroshima, but one article I found speaks of 110,000 civilians vs. 12,000 military personel until 1950.
Okay, let the trial begin
You're talking about the same nation that started the attack, pillaged China, and was responsible for turning thousands of Korean women into sex slaves. Seriously dude, stop trying to paint them as victims. It was a war they started. If they didn't want to get a bloody nose then they probably shouldn't have launched an attack. Furthermore, you are dancing around everyone's well reasoned responses to your posts. It is almost guaranteed that the alternative to the use of nuclear weapons would have been far worse.
When you start a fight you lose the right to bitch about the results. Imagine if a person pulled a knife on you but you shot him before he could stab you. Does he have the right to complain? No.
Similar threads
