Your opinions on the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

[Rumple Foreskin]

I wonder if the people who justify the bombs by saying "Think of the lives it SAVED by ending the war right then and there" would want to nuke the entire middle east to wipe out every suspected terrorist there is.

In the long term that would save many more lives wouldn't it?

 

[wfooshee]

That's not even remotely the same.

Not EVERYONE in the Middle East is anti-west. Not even everyone in the nations that proclaim themselves to be anti-west.

We are not at war with a recognised nation-state, we are at war with a religious fundamentalist group that scatters its leadership far and wide in a cellular structure designed from the outset to avoid detection. Japan was a recognized national body, whose military leadership set out on a path of world conquest, empire-building.

Nuking the Middle East into oblivion would destroy a significantly larger proportion of innocents than enemies. Besides, what good is radiactive oil?

 

[Danoff]

Besides, what good is radiactive oil?

I'm pretty sure that gives you more horsepower.

 

[YSSMAN]

I wonder if the people who justify the bombs by saying "Think of the lives it SAVED by ending the war right then and there" would want to nuke the entire middle east to wipe out every suspected terrorist there is.

In the long term that would save many more lives wouldn't it?

Just a few random thoughts on the topic:

1) Its a different kind of war - The differences between an insurgency and a "traditional" war are pretty clear... That being said, the invasion of Japan likely would have turned into an insurgent war anyway. That is, if the Japanese citizens were to follow the "orders" given by Hirohito.

2) Its a different time in human history, we value human life (well, westernized folk) to a greater extent

3) No one knows what the overall damage to the environment would be, that is, how radiation is spread, if it is spread, etc

4) One could argue that the "door" on nuclear arms has closed to an extent. They cause too much damage to be utilized or even rationalize, and while I don't think we'll see it leave the arsenals of major military powers for some time, their replacement will likely come in the rather scary EMP and Neutron weapons that are being developed.

 

[RecklesAbandon2]

If a soldier doesn't want to go to war then don't join the army. Soldiers aren't innocent. Tragic loss of life, but not innocent.

so you think everybody who joins a country's millitary is planning on going to war?
Do they have a choice in what wars they fight, once they join?

What if a soldier joins during a 100% justified war, and after that war is over, while still enlisted, his country starts a petty war?

Soldiers are civillians who dedicated their lives for whatever period of time, to try to serve their country. If that makes them worth less than civillians that were not willing to make that sacrifice, than maybe they're defending the wrong people.

 

[Tornado]

Not EVERYONE in the Middle East is anti-west. Not even everyone in the nations that proclaim themselves to be anti-west.

The Japanese government itself wasn't particularly anti-west either. We had just backed them into a corner and they needed us out of the way temporarily so we wouldn't interfere with their expansion.

 

[Sureboss]

I never said they are worth less than civilians, re-read my post if you think that.

I said they aren't innocent (barring National service), they chose to go to war, they know that some wars are good and some wars are bad (although aren't all wars bad?...)

so you think everybody who joins a country's millitary is planning on going to war?

Well, I think that's the point of being a soldier. Fighting for your country, not week after week of training drills.

 

[TopHat]

PATRIOT MODE: ACTIVATE

So, as an American, how do you feel towards the bombings?

Quite satisfied, thanks.

- Do you think it ended the war earlier?

Very yes. The Japanese had this wonderful inclination to fight until they were forced to commit ritual suicide, while attempting to take out as many of us as possible. Millions would have died.

- Did it indeed end the war earlier, or was it just America being hopeless, and instead killing more civilians than enemies?

BRAM MAKE MATT ANGRY.

- Even though this kind of power was discovered earlier on, should America have ever been allowed to use it against human lives?

Yes. The war might have gone on for another half a year, maybe more.

- What are your general opinions on the whole fact?

What's 10 miles long, 3 inches tall, and glows in the dark?

Spoiler

Hiroshima after the nuclear bombing

- As a result of the bombings, do you find America guilty or related in any way towards current and/or earlier nuclear activity by eastern countries or the Soviets?

Of course it did. It was the beginning of the arms race.

 

[wfooshee]

The Japanese government itself wasn't particularly anti-west either. We had just backed them into a corner and they needed us out of the way temporarily so we wouldn't interfere with their expansion.

Arguing that we didn't like their expansion into sovereign areas by invasion is not the same as backing them into a corner.

 

[Tornado]

No, but what we did to prevent their expansion did. I'm not saying we asked for Pearl Harbor, but I am saying that the Japanese felt that it was necessary to accomplish what they wanted. They never had any hatred of Western ideals, so if anything, by your reasoning, the Middle East deserves a few atomic bombs far more than Japan ever did.

 

[YSSMAN]

Japan knew that the only power that could defeat them in the Pacific was the United States, and their first-strike was to limit our power exclusively in the theater. You've gotta remember that not too long before that there was that little war with Russia, which they won rather easily, and my guess would be that the Soviets would have been able to do little as well.

Japan, if anything, was doing exactly what the United States had done with South America. It declared East Asia as its own sphere of influence, and consequently, wanted everyone out. The difference is, generally, Americans were "nice" and a little less-direct with their actions in the backyard... Japan, not so much. We didn't "deserve" what we got, and I'm pretty sure they didn't "deserve" theirs either, but it was a clash of power that was bound to happen.

 

[niky]

2) Its a different time in human history, we value human life (well, westernized folk) to a greater extent

And that's the whole point that moots the debate.

It was World War II. Cities were targets. Period. Doesn't matter if they were full of civilians, they were targets.

The atom bomb was not immoral, then, given the culture of the time and the war that was being fought. Not any more immoral than firebombing Tokyo... or Hamburg... or Berlin... it was an act of war.

An atom bomb, used in this age, would be immoral. When there are more precise weapons systems which can disable an enemy state's capacity to fight without devastating civilian populations. And especially considering that your opponents now are not cities or states, but terrorist cells hidden amongst populations.

Would you atom-bomb LA to destroy a terrorist cell? Obviously not.

 

[Danoff]

The atom bomb was not immoral, then, given the culture of the time and the war that was being fought.

I don't define my morality by the prevailing culture of the time. That notion renders morality right out of existence.

 

[Speedy Samurai]

The difference is, generally, Americans were "nice" and a little less-direct with their actions in the backyard... Japan, not so much.

So "Kill everyone under 10 (years of age)" is nice?

 

[Motominded]

We cant blame people from another time for what is considered inhumane today.
Yes, those twbombs killed many many people but they also ended WWII. But most people dont consider that many more Japanese and American soldiers lives would have been lost if the u.s. troops had to invade mainland Japan. WWII was one of the worst times in world history but allot of good came from it. Even right after WWII, Americans helped japan get back on it's feet. That's why so many Japanese companies are as successful as they are today and the live expectancy of a person in japan is longer in japan.

To add, Im of the Jewish faith but i have no hard feelings toward Germany or any of its people. I feel like if i did hold a grudge, i would contribute to racism in the world.

Yes, it was a horrid time in human history but we must move on and learn from our mistakes. We will never learn to accept each other if we hold grudges that originated 40 years before we were born.

 

[Danoff]

We cant blame people from another time for what is considered inhumane today.

I beg to differ.

 

[Motominded]

I beg to differ.

How? So your saying that in todays world we should hate the U.S. for doing what they did?

 

[Motominded]

I wonder if the people who justify the bombs by saying "Think of the lives it SAVED by ending the war right then and there" would want to nuke the entire middle east to wipe out every suspected terrorist there is.

In the long term that would save many more lives wouldn't it?

That's an ignorant statement.

Bombs on the scale of the ones from the cold war will never be used again by the U.S. (Hopefully), we are at an age where we have precise weapons and wont need to nuke it. If anything it is terrorists.....NOT countries that is the issue.

There are also allot of people from the middle east who don't agree with their extremist gov'ts.

 

[Danoff]

How? So your saying that in todays world we should hate the U.S. for doing what they did?

No, I'm saying that morality doesn't change over time or culture.

 

[TopHat]

Morality shouldn't play a factor when you're in a war against an entire country, especially one that's willing to attack you until there's nothing left of themselves.

 

[ProTron]

No, I'm saying that morality doesn't change over time or culture.

Oh, puuhlease. Who, besides you, seriously believes that our values/beliefs have not changed over the centuries, even decades, past? I suppose we should all have retained, for example, the Victorian morality of ages ago? Your morality, Danoff, may not change - nor should the morality change of any respectful person. But to say that morality doesn't change from generation to generation, over time and culture, is simply not historically acurate.

I'm against violence of any kind, and that most certainly includes the bombings. It was morally wrong to drop the bombs. Violence, especially on that scale, is not only morally wrong but is also counter-productive to the survival of our species. The logical end-result is our complete extinction.

But let's not pretend that our nations morality, or any culture's morality, does not change over time. Can you say '60's. Today, networks won't allow cigarette smoking on TV as they did in the past, but it's okay if South Park drops a few "bombs." Morality falls and rises with hemlines, cleavage shoots and our tolerance for violence. And for doG's sake, don't look for your daily dose of righteous morality Sunday mornings. I seriously doubt that the Japanese have the same values/beliefs or morality as that of Americans. But I'm sure that each culture's morality will change over time.

 

[wfooshee]

I wonder if the people who justify the bombs by saying "Think of the lives it SAVED by ending the war right then and there" would want to nuke the entire middle east to wipe out every suspected terrorist there is.

In the long term that would save many more lives wouldn't it?

I wanted to come back to this one, because the proposal just bugs me.

We didn't set out to nuke Japan into oblivion, in the manner of nuking the entire Middle East to wipe out every terrorist.

We bombed two cities to demonstrate the capability, to show the enemy what they were truly up against. To cause them to lose all hope. (And we fervently hoped they didn't call the bluff, because it would have been months getting another device.)

You don't "carpet-bomb" with nukes, and you don't wipe out entire civilizations to remove a minority.

 

[wfooshee]

I'm against violence of any kind, and that most certainly includes the bombings. It was morally wrong to drop the bombs. Violence, especially on that scale, is not only morally wrong but is also counter-productive to the survival of our species. The logical end-result is our complete extinction.

That is horrifyingly naive.

Pointless violence of the kind portrayed in Natural Born Killers is absolutely amoral. (Purposely used amoral instead of immoral there.)

Murdering somebody is immoral. Stealing from them is immoral.

Not using whatever means are at hand to end a conflict forced upon you is immoral. Invading Japan in order to avoid that a-bomb, causing the country to spend another year (or more) in conflict, with millions of lives on the line, would have been immoral. If that had been the path taken, and someone who lost a son in the invasion learned what we could have done, which version of "morality" do you think he'd look to?

To keep yourself alive, you have to be the strongest one around. You don't have to be the meanest, just the strongest. There's a difference between accepting a path of violence and seeking it. The first can easily be moral, the second probably not.

Edit: Sorry for the double post. I thought I'd copied it into the previous with edit. Oops.

 

[ProTron]

So, if I'm stronger than you, and we have a conflict which may harm me, I should drop a bomb on your head. And you'd be fine with that - morally speaking.

 

[Tornado]

(And we fervently hoped they didn't call the bluff, because it would have been months getting another device.)

You have said this a couple of times, and it confuses me. I thought we had a third one nearly completed (able to be dropped within a week or thereabouts), and if it was the 4th one we would have had to wait months for.

 

[ERacer]

So, if I'm stronger than you, and we have a conflict which may harm me, I should drop a bomb on your head. And you'd be fine with that - morally speaking.

Well, now, hold on. Don't we have a moral obligation to ensure the safety of our people?

ERacer

 

[ProTron]

Well, now, hold on. Don't we have a moral obligation to ensure the safety of our people?

ERacer

Of course! But not at the expense of humanity!

 

[ERacer]

Of course! But not at the expense of humanity!

No, not at the expense of humanity. But perhaps less heavy-handedly than dropping an A-bomb. We Americans always seem to barge in so heavy-handedly as our recent history would suggest. How about some negotiation? Covert operations? Although, I suppose we had exhausted all negotiations at the end of WW2. I do agree that dropping the bomb was not the best solution. I mean, what were we fighting the Japanese over? Yes, they attacked Pearl Harbor. But weren't the Japanese fighting us over a few islands in the Pacific? At one point, not too long ago, they practically owned all the prime properties in Manhattan. Of course, the historical ownership of that island is another moral story.

ERacer

 

[ProTron]

You can't compare the morality of buying land from an Indian tribe who believed that the land belonged to no man and was free for all to use, to the morality of bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

[ERacer]

You can't compare the morality of buying land from an Indian tribe who believed that the land belonged to no man and was free for all to use, to the morality of bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

No. I didn't intend to draw any parallel. It's just that I'm not sure it was worth dropping the bomb. The decision to use nuclear bombs weighed heavily on the conscience of those in power at the time and the morality of the act was probably debated. But was it worth the price for what we were engaged in with Japan? Compared to what we had been fighting for in Europe at the time? In any case, I can't justify the bombing, so I think we are in agreement there.

ERacer