Thoughts on the atomic bomb

This conversation, usually, breaks into two camps:

Camp A is those who say, "Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as bad as they were, was much smaller in casualties, in comparison to expected casualties, from the Allied invasion of the Japanese home islands."

Camp B is those who say, "Japan was ready to surrender, around the time of the two bombs, and especially after the first bomb, anyway. The declaration of war by the Soviet Union, and their successful campaigns against the Imperial Japanese forces, also accelerated the desire for Japan's surrender."

As for my opinion, I'll wait on that, if you don't mind.

 

The atomic bomb put an end to WW2, but what use are they now? The only reason I see to have nuclear warheads is because other countries have them - especially rogue states like Russia, who seem to do whatever they want. Having them around basically implies that they will be used one day.

I'd be happy if all nations with nukes disposed of them - but if nations like Russia are going to keep a ridiculous large nuclear arsenal, then I'd rather we did as well - if only to say 'Look, we have nukes, so don't piss us off'.

 

Horrific and inexcusable as are any mass or minor civilian casualties of war

 

I don't know. There can be arguments that Japan was going to surrender anyway, but I feel it could have gone either way. There's maybe an argument to be had, that even if the atomic bombing wasn't the reason that Japan surrendered, it did help to prevent war between the allies and soviets which would have been devastating with atomic bombs and without the fear of those weapons.

Something which is a bit lesser known is that the damage and human casualties from those bombs was less than the fire-bombing of Tokyo and other cities before. Those fire-bombings really brought Japan down. I don't know either what do think about that, it definitely shortened the war and reduced Japan's production and morale, but it was still a massive crime.

 

*entry deleted*

I better shut myself up. No need to scratch old wounds. So let me say only this.

It was wrong back then and it is wrong now to have nuclear weapons.

 

With us having troops all over the world, and especially occupying the Middle East, aren't we really just as much a "rogue state" as Russia moving into the Ukraine? Glass houses ... stones.

Do we really TRUST the government of our own country? With a 9% approval rating of our (Koch owned) Congress, and a 96% re-election rate, maybe it is ourselves we shouldn't trust. :icon_sad:

 

I think... no better wording... doubt governments reflect us... people anymore. We have that big a-hole ruling us with corruption, bribes, excessive work of religion as political tool etc. You had Bush family. UK had Thatcher. Iraq had Saddam... end list goes on. Even Hitler's party got elected if my memory serves.

Some people somewhere playing games and price always paid by us...

 

A completely inhumane and unnecessary action.

A few years ago I went to see a Japanese woman talk about the day that Nagasaki was bombed (she was a teenager back at the time). She spoke of how her and her mother went looking for her older sister and brother who were at a university in the city. Once in the city, they couldn't even recognise it at all especially since they were surrounded by hundreds/thousands of charred bodies of men, women and children. While walking they passed by many people who had managed to survive but most had severe wounds, and the only thing that these people wanted was some water. Eventually they got to the university, but it had been disintegrated along with all the people inside...

So yeah, I have a pretty firm stance on this subject.

 

Should never have been made.

 

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasake put an end to WWII and let the world understand that America was the new superpower. I'm not sure if Japan would have surrendered if America hadn't taken such drastic measures, but it set an example of the capability of modern warfare. If Japan would have fought till the last citizen, I believe that the bombing was neccisary. If Japan was going to give up in the next few days, America wouldn't have had to use the bombs.
The capability of modern nuclear weapons is something that is absurd, but is a deterrant to total war between powerful countries.

 

Did Harry Truman think it was fair to bomb Hiroshima and kill thousands of Japanese citizens. It wasn't fair but it was war. Would Israel that decimated the Gaza strip in an air campaign this summer say it was fair that Hamas used children as human shields in weapons compounds? It wasn't fair but it was war. It wasn't fair that Pakistan hid bin laden in a three story barracks a mile away from it's military academy for more than five years, but it was war. It wasn't fair that navy seal team six violated Pakistani air space to raid the same barracks to kill every adult male in it, but it was war. If war is anything, it sure is not fair. Those who fight by the sword will die by the sword. We see it over and over and over throughout history.

 

I understand why it had to be done but it seems extreme

 

do we think the fire bombing of Dresden was justified?

 

It had to happen. As others have said it ended the war with the least amount of allies' lives lost. An invasion would lead to a massive amount of deaths both American, Japanese, and Soviet.
Modern atomic bombs are pretty much only in existence because the technology exists and so people such as genocidal dictators could get them. Its pretty much a "I have them, because you have them, you have them because I have them" situation.

 

How can you justify killing human beings?

The story of how the atom bomb was made (Los Alamos, Oppenheimer's story,etc) is fascinating though, and how expensive the whole thing was back then for the u.s. ...

 

Hitler and the Nazis weren't democratically elected Adolf Hitler's rise to power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No, Hitler Did Not Come to Power Democratically « LobeLog

 

I mean, I would usually say that the mass genocide of civilians is horrific, but there's no telling what would have happened. Had Japan indicated that they were on the verge of giving up, then the bombs would have been overkill and we could have used other preemptive measures.

 

I don't have anything specific to add on Hiroshima, since i admittedly haven't bothered to learn much about it.

M.A.D. comes to mind, when reading this thread, though.

It is out of fear, that people/countries resort to such "strategies", and it is exactly because humans are so flawed, that concepts like "world piece" are just fallacy.

Bombs are cool though, scary... granted, but still, cool! One has to appreciate the engineering that goes into them.