| Was the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan justified? |
| Yes |
|
48% |
[ 13 ] |
| No |
|
40% |
[ 11 ] |
| Maybe |
|
11% |
[ 3 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 27 |
|
| Author |
Message |
General Bombastus
Joined: 29 Jun 2007
Posts: 179
HP: 100 MP: 10 Lives: 0
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:07 pm
|
 |
|
Umm... wasn't one of the cities they bombed storing weapons? Just throwing that out there.
Also, all's fair in love and war.
EDIT: OHDANG I'm on a roll. Second new page I started today! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Simsmagic
Aggrieved
Vampire
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Posts: 10482
HP: 28 MP: 1 Lives: 0
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:12 pm
|
|
|
I think that they were perfectly justified in using it. The Japanese obviously had no intentions to simply surrender, and attempting an invasion otherwise would've been harmful to both us AND them.
They dropped it on two civilian cities so they could prove not only to Japan that they were powerful, but also to the Soviet Union, who at that time, was rivaling the U.S. for the title of "Most Powerful Country in the World". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bartz Klauser
BAMFing ARCHER
Werewolf
Joined: 27 Sep 2007
Posts: 7637
HP: 100 MP: 5 Lives: 4
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:14 pm
|
|
|
| General Bombastus wrote: | Umm... wasn't one of the cities they bombed storing weapons? Just throwing that out there.
Also, all's fair in love and war.
EDIT: OHDANG I'm on a roll. Second new page I started today! |
I'm sure you're thinking of Hiroshima, which was "an important army depot"
Oh, and it turns out that there was an ultimatum(the Potsdam Declaration), but it was outright rejected by the Japanese. That makes it justified, really. I'm guessing it was used as a quick resolution to the war, really. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Axolotl Sympathist
Geno
Werewolf
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 8754
HP: 100 MP: 4 Lives: 1
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:16 pm
|
|
|
| General Bombastus wrote: | | Umm... wasn't one of the cities they bombed storing weapons? Just throwing that out there. |
Hiroshima had military bases on the outskirts of the city, meaning, a nuke wasn't necessary to take out some bases on the edge. Nagasaki, well, that was just to use up the second bomb. Literally, that was the main reason. We had it, why not drop it? Sure, there were some military personnel, but we killed as many American POWs as we did Japanese soldiers in Nagasaki.
Last edited by Geno on Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:17 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cid
Lord Krump
Joined: 21 Apr 2007
Posts: 7880
HP: 60 MP: 2 Lives: 0
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:16 pm
|
|
|
It really depends. Was the potential loss of American soldiers great enough to warrant the death of many civilian lives? Was the potential loss of resources or debt the US could face big enough to justify dropping bombs on cities populated by plenty of innocent people? Should those innocent people pay the price of death for the decisions made by their leaders?
I don't hold a strong opinion either way on this, as it happened so long ago. Allow me to point out that none of us can hold an opinion that is truly of merit, due to how long ago it happened. However, I will tell you that if our nation ever decided in the future that it was better to choose a path that would lead to the death of thousands of innocent civilians instead of risking a prolonged war, I probably wouldn't show support for the decision. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RaveRaze
Mana7
Dead
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
Posts: 6987
HP: 0 MP: 2 Lives: 0
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 9:32 pm
|
|
|
| Screamy wrote: | | RaveRaze wrote: | | It was *crag* justified, cause were in a *crag* war. Its not like a countries population is its drummer boy, No thats where you attack. In a fight do you punch em in the arm or knee them in the stomach. If they didn't wanna get bombed then they shouldn't have gone to war. Also Americas being too much of a pussy right now. It should have bombed the shit out of the Taliban instead of just trying to hunt them down. Because were too big of pansies to do shit, there reforming somewhere in Asia and we got no *crag* clue what theyll do next. Although the recent terrorist attacks in Africa are similar to Taliban acts they were too dispersed to be performed by one organization meaning that previous Taliban leaders could have formed their own new terrorist groups by using the Muslim Militias in countries such as Somalia. Meaning we have more personal threats than we had before we went to war |
First off we dropped the bomb on a damn CIVILIAN target. Countless innocent women and children died. It's probably better that we dropped the bomb, but we should've used it on a military target, and we didn't need to use two. Yeah let's bomb Afghanistan and kill innocent lives just so we can hit a few terrorists along the way. Do you even realize what you're saying? |
Oh thats right your a new user, you dont know me very well do you?
See, im more of a person whod like to be 100% efficient, any second wasted, any other base destroyed is a drop in efficency. The lives of some foreign country really don't matter in efficency, cause your jobs not to protect them, its to protect us. All in All the army did what it was supposed to do, protect the USA |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bartz Klauser
BAMFing ARCHER
Werewolf
Joined: 27 Sep 2007
Posts: 7637
HP: 100 MP: 5 Lives: 4
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 9:36 pm
|
|
|
| RaveRaze wrote: | | Screamy wrote: | | RaveRaze wrote: | | It was *crag* justified, cause were in a *crag* war. Its not like a countries population is its drummer boy, No thats where you attack. In a fight do you punch em in the arm or knee them in the stomach. If they didn't wanna get bombed then they shouldn't have gone to war. Also Americas being too much of a pussy right now. It should have bombed the shit out of the Taliban instead of just trying to hunt them down. Because were too big of pansies to do shit, there reforming somewhere in Asia and we got no *crag* clue what theyll do next. Although the recent terrorist attacks in Africa are similar to Taliban acts they were too dispersed to be performed by one organization meaning that previous Taliban leaders could have formed their own new terrorist groups by using the Muslim Militias in countries such as Somalia. Meaning we have more personal threats than we had before we went to war |
First off we dropped the bomb on a damn CIVILIAN target. Countless innocent women and children died. It's probably better that we dropped the bomb, but we should've used it on a military target, and we didn't need to use two. Yeah let's bomb Afghanistan and kill innocent lives just so we can hit a few terrorists along the way. Do you even realize what you're saying? |
Oh thats right your a new user, you dont know me very well do you?
See, im more of a person whod like to be 100% efficient, any second wasted, any other base destroyed is a drop in efficency. The lives of some foreign country really don't matter in efficency, cause your jobs not to protect them, its to protect us. All in All the army did what it was supposed to do, protect the USA |
Actually, nuking is even less efficent. Mostly because the human costs actually outweigh any real positive benefit you might have gained from destroying that terrorist base.
Oh, and Screamy, don't forget, he's a debater. A CXer at a point in time, it's only natural for them to do this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Something to deliver
Screamy
Joined: 21 Mar 2009
Posts: 112
HP: 100 MP: 10 Lives: 0
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 9:54 pm
|
|
|
|
If we nuke Afghanistan their government would come after us, along with a ton of other countries. It would not be pretty. We would end up losing a lot of allies and making a lot more enemies. It's not the Afghanistan government we're at war with, its the terrorists there, so nuking anything there would just be stupid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
koopakape
Supa Koopa
Joined: 21 Mar 2009
Posts: 97
HP: 100 MP: 10 Lives: 0
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:44 pm
|
|
|
i kiiiiiiiiiiiinda personally wish nuclear/atomic bombs never came into existence and we just used normal bombings and such to counter the 'lol u wanna fite?' pearl harbor stuff
i think we'd have won bigtime anyway
now atom bombs are always always gonna be a scary truth and every time you think about it real hard you end up biting your nails over who might have access to them or be getting there or if some american super-official with access to our own ever decides to go apeshit and bomb everything or something and ffffffffffffffffffff
we could only hope we'd end up living in a really tough fallout-esque wasteland of a remnant world and not be completely wiped out by our own stupidity |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sync
MALAK
Joined: 01 Aug 2007
Posts: 34747
HP: 10 MP: 2 Lives: 0
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 12:10 am
|
|
|
Honestly? No. It's not smart to involve the people in shit like this.
AN EXAMPLE OF THIS IS 9/11 LOL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lifeless Intellectual
Crappy Shifty Luigi
Dead
Joined: 12 May 2007
Posts: 2619
HP: 0 MP: 4 Lives: 0
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:20 am
|
|
|
|
They should've told the kids to leave the area BEFORE they bombed the cities. So no. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CFH
Ligador
Joined: 20 Jan 2008
Posts: 5136
HP: 100 MP: 6 Lives: 2
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 10:09 am
|
|
|
| The Creator wrote: | | They should've told the kids to leave the area BEFORE they bombed the cities. So no. |
*facepalm*
Of course. They could totally have said "RUN AWAY I'M GONNA BOMB THIS SHIT". And the japanese army totally wouldn't do anything about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bartz Klauser
BAMFing ARCHER
Werewolf
Joined: 27 Sep 2007
Posts: 7637
HP: 100 MP: 5 Lives: 4
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 4:17 pm
|
|
|
| Sync wrote: | Honestly? No. It's not smart to involve the people in shit like this.
AN EXAMPLE OF THIS IS 9/11 LOL |
You know, in terms of what happened, I agree, 9/11 is sorta like Hiroshima/Nagasaki in that sense, on a smaller scale. Discount the nuclear fallout and all that, too. Innocents were both killed, even though the terrorists were aiming for civilians.
But that brings up another point of mine, using nukes pretty much lowers us to the level of terrorists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sync
MALAK
Joined: 01 Aug 2007
Posts: 34747
HP: 10 MP: 2 Lives: 0
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 4:22 pm
|
|
|
| Laharl wrote: | | Sync wrote: | Honestly? No. It's not smart to involve the people in shit like this.
AN EXAMPLE OF THIS IS 9/11 LOL |
You know, in terms of what happened, I agree, 9/11 is sorta like Hiroshima/Nagasaki in that sense, on a smaller scale. Discount the nuclear fallout and all that, too. Innocents were both killed, even though the terrorists were aiming for civilians.
But that brings up another point of mine, using nukes pretty much lowers us to the level of terrorists. |
We were aiming at civilians too. Otherwise we would've only bombed important areas, not whole cities. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bartz Klauser
BAMFing ARCHER
Werewolf
Joined: 27 Sep 2007
Posts: 7637
HP: 100 MP: 5 Lives: 4
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 4:33 pm
|
|
|
| Sync wrote: | | Laharl wrote: | | Sync wrote: | Honestly? No. It's not smart to involve the people in shit like this.
AN EXAMPLE OF THIS IS 9/11 LOL |
You know, in terms of what happened, I agree, 9/11 is sorta like Hiroshima/Nagasaki in that sense, on a smaller scale. Discount the nuclear fallout and all that, too. Innocents were both killed, even though the terrorists were aiming for civilians.
But that brings up another point of mine, using nukes pretty much lowers us to the level of terrorists. |
We were aiming at civilians too. Otherwise we would've only bombed important areas, not whole cities. |
Well, Hiroshima was chosen, 'cause it was actually an army depot. Nagasaki was just where they decided to drop the second bomb. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
