 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
2 users currently in General Chat:  Dark Vampriel |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - General Chat - Survey: The Atomic Bomb |
 |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
Was dropping 2 atomic bombs on Japan in 1945 justifiable?| Answer honestly, and if you wish, support your answer in a post | Yes |
46.8%, 22 votes | No |
42.6%, 20 votes | No decision |
10.6%, 5 votes | Multi-voting is disabled.
| |
| User | Post | ||
|
Toxic in a sublime state of mind Level: 75  Posts: 1224/2857 EXP: 3732709 For next: 94195 Since: 03-15-04 Since last post: 3 days Last activity: 8 hours |
| ||
| If we did not drop the bomb, there would be far more lives lost. The Japanese would have dug in, and the war would have dragged on for years to come. |
|||
jasukan Panser Level: 30 Posts: 206/344 EXP: 155950 For next: 9919 Since: 03-15-04 Since last post: 135 days Last activity: 62 days |
| ||
Originally posted by The SomerZOriginally posted by jasukan I didn't mean any racism. Please leave me alone. |
|||
|
Jack-Al Blah Blah Blah Level: 28  Posts: 127/284 EXP: 116984 For next: 14354 Since: 03-15-04 From: Montréal, Québec, Canada Since last post: 10 days Last activity: 2 days |
| ||
| Umm... Japanese Leaders had begun talking about surrendering a year before the atomic bombs were dropped, and the Japanese Goverment had instructed its ambassador in Moscow to work on peace negotiations with the Allies. Therefore, Japan would have probably surrendered even if the atomic bombs would not have been dropped. Some people say that the American Goverment knew about Japan's plans for surrendering since they had broken the Japanese Code, but no one really knows what they were able to find out. I don't think it was justifiable though, other measures could have been taken... Oh well, that's all in the past now.  |
|||
|
NSNick Laidback Admin Level: 85  Posts: 376/3875 EXP: 5895841 For next: 2699 Since: 03-15-04 From: North Side School: OSU Since last post: 9 hours Last activity: 1 hour |
| ||
| One firebomb raid on Tokyo: ~100K dead, ~1M injured Another firebomb raid on Tokyo: ~80K dead. Nagasaki death toll: ~140K dead Hiroshima death toll: ~70K dead The fact that nuclear weapons were used is not so much a factor as the fact that civilian targets were picked. But not only did this intimidation save American lives by causing Japan to surrender, but it may have saved Japanese lives in the long run, as more than 200K most likely would have died in a conventional assault. |
|||
Kitten Yiffer Purple wand Furry moderator Vivent l'exp����¯�¿�½������©rience de signalisation d'amusement, ou bien ! Level: 135 Posts: 1770/11162 EXP: 28824106 For next: 510899 Since: 03-15-04 From: Sweden Since last post: 3 hours Last activity: 4 min. |
| ||
If the bombs weren't used at that time... they would have been used later. At least that's what I think.  And if it was right or wrong? I honestly won't say anything as I have no idea... but yeah alot of innocent people was killed... ...but at least, what would happen if a country used a a-bomb on another country today? |
|||
|
Toxic in a sublime state of mind Level: 75 Posts: 1232/2857 EXP: 3732709 For next: 94195 Since: 03-15-04 Since last post: 3 days Last activity: 8 hours |
| ||
| If a country used one today, odds are a global war would erupt with the massive launching of missles back and forth, destroying most of the population. | |||
|
Kefka Indefinitely Unbanned Level: 81 Posts: 1940/3392 EXP: 4826208 For next: 166641 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pomona, CALIFORNIA BABY! Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours |
| ||
| And that, Toxic, is mainly due to all the friggin alliances we have now, and fear of each other. Just thought I'd point that out. | |||
|
kitty Come on babe, pet the pussy ;) Level: 70 Posts: 1088/2449 EXP: 2962406 For next: 53405 Since: 03-15-04 From: Scranton, PA, USA Since last post: 3 hours Last activity: 3 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by CymoroUnfortunatley, people don't use this logic when they examine this kind of stuff. See, nobody understands that Japan would NOT have surrendered, not even after the Hiroshima bomb. People tend to blank out the fact that the Japanese were more than willing to sacrafice themselves for victory. After Nagasaki, it became apparent to the Japs that if they didn't give up, we could just anihilate their island with a few more bombs like this, especially on Tokyo. We didn't bomb Tokyo (although a few generals wanted to), because it was overkill. We did what we had to - no more, no less - to win the war in the Pacific. |
|||
alte Hexe Star Mario I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night Alive as you and me "But Joe you're ten years dead!" "I never died" said he "I never died!" said he Level: 99  Posts: 647/5458 EXP: 9854489 For next: 145511 Since: 03-15-04 From: ... Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| The Japanese would've surrendered. To America. They were still fighting Russia. The primary reason for continued American involvement coalescing into the Atomic Bombings was the fear of spreading Communism. The Soviets would've dropped right into Japan had America accepted the surrender. |
|||
NightHawk Bob-Omb Level: 39  Posts: 87/621 EXP: 374743 For next: 30028 Since: 03-26-04 From: Switzerland Since last post: 432 days Last activity: 339 days |
| ||
| I think it was justifiable, because if we hadn't drop those bombs, the Japanese would've continued fighting, and the death toll would've been far higher. They would not have surrendered, because Japanese culture at the time believed death was better than defeat. They only surrendered once they saw it was a choice between defeat, and annihilation of their entire island. Remember: the US gave them time to surrender before the first bomb was dropped, and then again before the second one. The US warned them about it... it was Japan's choice whether or not those bombs were dropped, and they chose wrong the first 2 times they were asked. |
|||
NetSplit Koopa Level: 19 Posts: 1/117 EXP: 30378 For next: 5399 Since: 04-05-04 Since last post: 1 day Last activity: 1 hour |
| ||
| I don't think it was very justified. See, by this point, the Japanese were fighting essentially to save their emperor, who would have had to have been removed under the terms of unconditional surrender. They obviously didn't want this to happen and were willing to fight to the bitter end to keep him in power. Ironically, when they did surrender, they were allowed to keep their emperor; had this been stated beforehand, it's very possible that the Japanese may have surrendered much earlier. Russia was to have sent its troops to fight against Japan three months after V-E day (Victory in Europe); the bombs were dropped just a few days before that would have happened. The US knew that Japan would have surrendered had Russia entered due to the Japanese transmissions that had been intercepted; the code had been cracked, after all. It really was a race against Russia to end the war; the US knew that after the war ended, they wouldn't be on good terms with Russia, so the dropping of the bombs was actually used more to intimidate them than anything else, since we could have just as easily waited for Russia to enter and possibly end the war rather quickly. 'Hey, look at us; we have this immensely powerful weapon, and if you mess with us we'll use it on you.' The atomic bombs were essentially the first shots fired in the Cold War. As for dropping the bombs being used as justification for saving the lives of soldiers who would be sent to invade Japan (had the invasion actually had to have taken place), the estimates for the death toll that would result from said invasion were, to the best of my recollection, around 65,000 people, displaying the idea of 'Well, it's better that they lose 100,000 people than we lose 60,000 people.' The estimates were distorted over time to better justify the dropping of the bombs, ranging from 250,000 American lives to even an entire million soldiers, but they were just that - distortions made to better justify the attack. Note, though, that the numbers are a difficult thing to argue based off of, since there are a lot of things to take into account; for example, the Japanese had said that they would slaughter all prisoners held in Japan in the case of an invasion, which would up the number a fair amount. Still, I think they help illustrate the point that dropping the bombs likely didn't save as many lives as some seem to think. This whole topic is a pretty debatable one, anyway, so don't take all this as me giving 'the definitive opinion.' It's also been a while since I learned this stuff, so I might be a little off in some parts, but I think it's mostly accurate. Oh, and this is my first post, so hello, everyone. |
|||
|
NightHawk Bob-Omb Level: 39 Posts: 91/621 EXP: 374743 For next: 30028 Since: 03-26-04 From: Switzerland Since last post: 432 days Last activity: 339 days |
| ||
Well, welcome to the board NetSplit, but a better place to say "hello" would probably be in the Newbie Forum, so go on over there and introduce yourself  |
|||
neotransotaku Baby Mario 戻れたら、 誰も気が付く Level: 87 Posts: 609/4016 EXP: 6220548 For next: 172226 Since: 03-15-04 From: Outside of Time/Space Since last post: 11 hours Last activity: 1 hour |
| ||
| another factor in the decision of the U.S. using nuclear weapons was to stop the spread of communism. outside the ending the WW2 once and for all, the U.S. did not want communism to spread and allow U.S.S.R. to be an even stronger nation than it already was. but anyways, rumor has it that Japan was ready to surrender to U.S.S.R. before the use of nuclear weapons but there was one provision they did not want to accept -- to no longer pledge allegience to the Emperor (or something like that). Because of that, the Japanese no longer considered surrendering to U.S.S.R and well, history took its course. --- My opinion...the use of nuclear weapons will never be justified...luckily they had the impact they were supposed to have when they were used and have yet to be abused since then... |
|||
Ran-chan Moldorm eek, when are they going to stop growing... Level: 143  Posts: 902/12781 EXP: 35293588 For next: 538220 Since: 03-15-04 From: Nerima District, Tokyo - Japan Since last post: 12 hours Last activity: 12 hours |
| ||
| No. Definately No. It wasn | |||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38  Posts: 264/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| The Japanese are probably better off for being nuked, instead of having the USSR stake an interest in their territory a la East Germany. | |||
|
Captain X Banned Level: 6 Posts: 2/11 EXP: 841 For next: 66 Since: 05-19-04 Since last post: 532 days Last activity: 339 days |
| ||
| yes i athink droppeing aomic vombs are ver sdg cause they kill peopel see rightw | |||
Arwon Zora Level: 35  Posts: 67/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Justifiable? Yes, just about anything can be justified. Justification is a tricky thing like that. "Good" or "moral" however? No, nothing makes an act like that good or moral. Almost nothing in war can ever be "good" or "moral". |
|||
|
kitty Come on babe, pet the pussy ;) Level: 70 Posts: 1090/2449 EXP: 2962406 For next: 53405 Since: 03-15-04 From: Scranton, PA, USA Since last post: 3 hours Last activity: 3 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by NightHawkOh god, yeah, "Hey you didn't spam with an 'I'm new' thread so go do that now!" [05:57:34] < [05:57:53] < [05:58:03] < [05:58:31] < Edit: Arwon, that's exactly correct. It definetly wasn't ethical, but as you said, nothing in war is (That's what makes it war). It was the only way to end the war, so it was justifiable, but not ethical, no - mass murder never is. (edited by Yiffy Kitten on 05-19-04 05:59 AM) |
|||
Bola Red Goomba Level: 11 Posts: 34/38 EXP: 5723 For next: 262 Since: 03-15-04 From: Australia Since last post: 389 days Last activity: 326 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Arwon How about saving another mans life, or maybe many others? Would that be good/moral? |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 68/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Well I'd argue that it wasn't the only way to end the war, but it was a way, the chosen way. I also find the consequences of the act interesting, both intended and unintended. The "what ifs". If the bombs weren't dropped, and the world hadn't seen their power - would a later nuclear war have become more likely since their power would have only been a theoretical thing? |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - General Chat - Survey: The Atomic Bomb |
| | |
