 |
| 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 | ||
knuck Hinox Banned until 19-58-5815: trolling, flaming, spamming, being a general fucktard... Level: 62 Posts: 287/1818 EXP: 1894574 For next: 90112 Since: 03-15-04 Since last post: 14 hours Last activity: 9 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by SilvershieldYou didn't reply my question. If the same thing happened to US, you as american citzen would say "that is how war works"? Originally posted by SilvershieldIn 1945, a mass destruction weapon like that was something almost impossible. Imagine 2 of them.  Even you wouldn't give a shit to the second waning. (edited by knuck on 05-19-04 09:59 PM) |
|||
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: 654/5458 EXP: 9854489 For next: 145511 Since: 03-15-04 From: ... Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by SilvershieldOriginally posted by EvillerLegionEven after we'd bombed them once, they had no idea? Surely, if they took our second warning as a bluff, that is quite a tremendous bluff to ignore! Holy crap... The second bomb was dropped too soon for them to really surrender... AND HOW OFTEN DO COUNTRIES JUST GO ALL OUT AND SAY "WE'RE GOING TO KILL YOU ALL!"? Okay, the Germans and the French in WW1...But that's slightly different. |
|||
Silvershield Slime Level: 30 Posts: 205/345 EXP: 153029 For next: 12840 Since: 04-11-04 From: New Jersey Since last post: 60 days Last activity: 6 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by knuckNo, no, of course not. I would most definitely be angry and vengeful. But nobody expects an innocent Japanese civilian to sigh helplessly and say, "That's how war works," either. My entire point is that it is ridiculous for a government - the purpose of which is to protect and defend otherwise defenseless citizens - to exchange an immense number of unvolunteered lives in return for intangible and idiotic hubris. Originally posted by knuckMaybe I would ignore the first warning as an outrageous bluff and an insult to my intelligence, but after it's been done once already? Even if I did suspect it to be a lie, the stakes are a bit to high to simply deny it altogether and essentially force the enemy to prove the claim. Whether such weapons of mass destruction were "possible" or not, the safe route would be to fall for the bluff and lose face instead of denying it and losing hundreds of thousands of innocent lives. Edit to respond to Ziff: Originally posted by EvillerLegionToo soon for them to "really" surrender? Three days is enough time to hoist a white flag and shout, "We give up! We surrender!" Hell, five minutes is enough. If the Emperor had said the word, the second bomb wouldn't have been dropped. (edited by Silvershield on 05-19-04 10:11 PM) |
|||
|
knuck Hinox Banned until 19-58-5815: trolling, flaming, spamming, being a general fucktard... Level: 62 Posts: 288/1818 EXP: 1894574 For next: 90112 Since: 03-15-04 Since last post: 14 hours Last activity: 9 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by Silvershield I think someone said this already: citzens has NOTHING to do with the war itself. War happens between military forces. So it's ok for you if US destroy all the nations to protect the country? They should've bombed military forces, not cities. (edited by knuck on 05-19-04 10:35 PM) |
|||
|
Silvershield Slime Level: 30 Posts: 207/345 EXP: 153029 For next: 12840 Since: 04-11-04 From: New Jersey Since last post: 60 days Last activity: 6 hours |
| ||
| The distinction between soldier and civilian becomes irrelevant when overshadowed by a distinction between ally and enemy. America's choices were clear: kill hundreds of thousands of enemies, or allow the deaths of hundreds of thousands of allies. It doesn't matter that the enemies were mostly civilian and that the allies were entirely military; if Japan was looking out for the welfare of its civilian population, they would have surrendered before the bombs (or, at least, the second bomb) were (was) dropped. It was the Japanese who saw innocent lives as expendable, not the Americans. Just as we were concerned with the safety of our soldiers, the Emperor should have had more concern for his people and not for his "divine title." Surely, if there was an exclusively military target that the a-bomb could have been effectively aimed at, it would have been done. The fact is, there was no such target, and the war had to end immediately. We gave sufficient warning, dropped a bomb, warned again, and they still remained stubborn. I've said it already: they made the choice for us. |
|||
|
knuck Hinox Banned until 19-58-5815: trolling, flaming, spamming, being a general fucktard... Level: 62 Posts: 289/1818 EXP: 1894574 For next: 90112 Since: 03-15-04 Since last post: 14 hours Last activity: 9 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by SilvershieldUS is the only country that look at it this way. Originally posted by Silvershieldwhat...the...hell... Since when Japan does what US wants? Meh i'm done with this.  |
|||
|
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: 656/5458 EXP: 9854489 For next: 145511 Since: 03-15-04 From: ... Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| Silvershield, if terrorists were to destroy New York all over again...America wouldn't fold. Three days later LA is gone. America would fold. All nations are the same. |
|||
|
Kefka Indefinitely Unbanned Level: 81 Posts: 2017/3392 EXP: 4826208 For next: 166641 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pomona, CALIFORNIA BABY! Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by knuckOriginally posted by SilvershieldUS is the only country that look at it this way. Not really... just about every country acts this way. Oh, and by the by, I'm on a trip the next four days, so my posts might be non existant at best. And Ziff is half right: because with today's advancements in war technology, two cities being destroyed would not lead to a fold, it would lead to more fighting. However, if a great percentage were to be blown away in a short time, they probably would fold. |
|||
|
kitty Come on babe, pet the pussy ;) Level: 70 Posts: 1114/2449 EXP: 2962406 For next: 53405 Since: 03-15-04 From: Scranton, PA, USA Since last post: 3 hours Last activity: 3 hours |
| ||
| But, you see, America can't be put in the same situation really - we have a lot of big cities, yes, but we have a hell of a lot of rural areas as well. You can't just drop a nuke on Denver and expect everyone in Colorado to give up (an example of a city surrounded by a LOT of rural area). Hell, not even everyone in Hiroshima and Nagasaki died (and not from radiation poisining either). Maybe a total of 10-20 bombs could have taken out ALL of Japan, and they knew it. It would take well over 100 to dessimate half of America's population! |
|||
Arwon Zora Level: 35  Posts: 69/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
Originally posted by Yiffy Kitten See, that's just a quirk of how I think. Using the bombs was probably the correct decision given the circumstances, but I cannot ever view it as a "moral" or "good" thing. I'm largely convinved that there isn't sucha thing as "good" or "evil" in this world, just a bunch of stuff that happens. Meanwhile: the arguement that "an invasion would have been more costly" doesn't hold - the choices were not simply "nuke or invade", there was a gamut of other potential actions. Prolonged blockade. Accepting a conditional surrender. The insistence on unconditional surrender is what put that choice into existance, and this has been justified in hindsight by raising Japanese "samurai culture" to an article of faith in western circles. I don't buy it, it relies on a stereotypical view of the Japanese which while it has some merit, is not an absolute. They were not a homogenous, single-minded entity - there was a gamut of opinions, some Japanese folks wanted to surrender, and so forth. Nobody can say whether they would have surrendered ot not, or precisely what would have happaned had the atomic bombs not been dropped. The automatic assumption that "they'd have never surrendered" is based on a flawed stereotype and also smacks of conveniently shrugging off something that isn't a clear-cut thing. And on the last bit: Um, no. Japan had bombed Australia, but the Battle of the Coral Sea and the Australian defence of New Guinea by land (Kokoda Trail) turned them back, and put Australia beyond Japan's reach. No doubt more Australian troops would have died in the various island campaigns, but the Japanese weren't able to hit the Australian mainland by the closing stages of the war. But I think you've misunderstood my previous post about the interesting consequences of the act. I'm not talking about justifications and morlaity at all with this. Just a little intellectual curiosity. I'm a big fan of alternate history scenarios. The bombs were dropped, the war ended. But say they weren't. What other impacts did the bombs have? They showed the world their power in a visual and practical way - "this can happen". now, if they weren't dropped, and nuclear weapons continued to be developed roughly the way they have, would a later war have more likely turned nuclear because this fear of nuclear war wasn't as widespread and real? Another one - Japan surrendered completely and was completely cooperative in the post war. It is now a leading world power. Would this have happened anyway, or was it a consequence of the way the war went? The power of the weapons, and the complete surrender with Hirohito in charge supporting MacArthur as a virtual dictator with absolute power, were crucial to the path Japan took in the post war. What impacts would a less complete, more conditional surrender have had? A repeat of the Versailles fiasco with a simmering, bitter Japan itching for revenge? A Japan with less of a commitment to pacifism and retaining a military, which would have had various impacts on everything in the region beyond 1945 - another power in the region with its own influences and aims and ideas? What would this have meant for the development of the post-war world - Korea, Vietnam, the Asian region in general? What if the war took longer and the USSR got involved? A joint USSR-USA occupation providing another theater for emerging hostilities? What if Hirohito was killed and wasn't around to lend his authority to the US occupation? Could the war have devolved into a bloody occupation with guerilla warfare? (edited by Arwon on 05-20-04 07:02 AM) |
| 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 |
| | |
