August 6 - Hiroshima; August 9 - Nagasaki

[cloudscream]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEHaZRyQ2E0



Why did Japan surrender? (http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.boston.com%2Fbostonglobe% 2Fideas%2Farticles%2F2011%2F08%2F07%2Fwhy_did_japa n_surrender%2F%3Fpage%3Dfull&h=5AQBefr8WAQBKJAQvAqo1AQkqv2xbapimw3AJKmLP3kclBA)

Hasegawa - who was born in Japan and has taught in the United States since 1990, and who reads English, Japanese, and Russian - rejects both the traditional and revisionist positions. According to his close examination of the evidence, Japan was not poised to surrender before Hiroshima, as the revisionists argued, nor was it ready to give in immediately after the atomic bomb, as traditionalists have always seen it. Instead, it took the Soviet declaration of war on Japan, several days after Hiroshima, to bring the capitulation.


Hasegawa’s own relationship to the events of August of 1945 testifies to the degree to which, all these years later, they resist clear appraisal. As a child, Hasegawa watched the Tokyo firebombing from his roof, and he can still recall the eerie orange glow on the horizon. Growing up, he felt anger at the Japanese government for bringing the conflict onto its people. Later, working as a scholar in America, he accepted the position that the atomic bombing was necessary to end the war. Today he views America’s bombings of Japan’s cities - Hiroshima and Tokyo included - as war crimes. Yet, he adds, they are crimes America should not apologize for until Japan comes to terms with war crimes of its own.





"I used the deadwood to make the fire rise. The blood of innocence burning in the skies."

[Blackee Dammet]

I watched Men Behind The Sun. In memoriam.

[F-ck Casey]

Act of terror.

[SuperDude526]

I won't make a judgment call on whether the dropping of either bomb was necessary, just, good, bad, an act of terror, or whatever. But having been to both cities myself, I will say that I'm glad that after all this time, both cities look as beautiful as ever. It's truly inspiring to see both of these cities, having undergone such a huge tragedy, come out better than before.

[Harlz]

I won't make a judgment call on whether the dropping of either bomb was necessary, just, good, bad, an act of terror, or whatever. But having been to both cities myself, I will say that I'm glad that after all this time, both cities look as beautiful as ever. It's truly inspiring to see both of these cities, having undergone such a huge tragedy, come out better than before.

Other than the continuing radiation and high levels of new leukemia cases even today, right?

[Blackee Dammet]

Yep.

[F-ck Casey]

I won't make a judgment call on whether the dropping of either bomb was necessary, just, good, bad, an act of terror, or whatever. But having been to both cities myself, I will say that I'm glad that after all this time, both cities look as beautiful as ever. It's truly inspiring to see both of these cities, having undergone such a huge tragedy, come out better than before.

And might I ask why you won't make a "judgement call" on this? You seem super proud of your country from other posts I've seen, but you basically gloss over the fact that we kicked off the nuclear age with the destruction of two Japanese cities and strong armed them into being a nation without a standing army. We remember Pearl Harbor every year, but Hiroshima and Nagasaki still feel the effects of those bombs to this day. And we have the gall to sit here and act like heroes, it's shameful.

I might get lynched for saying that, but I've never been one to shy away from speaking my mind.

[Blackee Dammet]

Not entirely sure who would lynch you, if anything I'm willing to bet your opinion will end up being the popular one.

Me on the other hand, I see Imperial Japan as more of less the equivalent of the Nazis. They invaded, tortured, subjected and massacred with the best of them. Some of that torture being horrifying human experiments researching and testing biological weapons I doubt they would have hesitated to use on Chinese, Russian, or US civilians had they the opportunity.

I'll meet halfway with the acknowledging horrifying acts of brutality happen to undeserving people during times of war, but fuck acting like it was an unprovoked overreraction.

[F-ck Casey]

I don't care what anyone does, unleashing hellfire like an atomic bomb isn't justified, no matter what. Japan might have done some horrible things, but I'm pretty sure frying several hundred thousand citizens (in Hiroshima alone) in retaliation for Pearl Harbor isn't the right choice. It was a definite overreaction, and one we've regretted ever since. WE are the source of the nuclear arms problem. Torture, human experiments, massacres... still not good enough reasons to drop nuclear bombs. Sorry, guy. There will NEVER be a good enough reason to drop a nuclear bomb. That shit will be our undoing, one day.

If you want to get right into the brass taxes, man, we've invaded. We torture. We massacre on a small scale (sup Waco). For all I know, we experiment on humans in some government lab somewhere. I'll pretend that we aren't researching and testing biological and chemical weapons, for your sake. Well, I guess WE really aren't, we just commission other countries to do the testing, and then sell that product right back to them.

We're just as bad. You'll never convince me different.

[Blackee Dammet]

I don't care if you "pretend we don't" conduct human experiments on people for WMDs, for my sake, comparing goddamn Nanking to Waco makes you look ignorant as hell.

[Derek The Infamous]

Coincidentally, I was having this same exact discussion with someone just last night regarding whether or not we were right to bomb Japan. What we both agreed upon is that bombing Japan was the right choice to get Japan out of the war, however we do not agree with the type of bomb that was used or the way in which it was done. I don't care how limited our knowledge of technology or science might've been back then, there's no justifiable excuse for dropping an Atomic bomb not once, but TWICE on Japan. If Robert Oppenheimer knew how devastating the weapon was after only TESTING the bomb in New Mexico, the United States had to know that they were dealing with a weapon that would have long lasting consequences for the people of Japan. Bombing with Napalm is one thing, using Nuclear energy to destroy a civilization for several decades is a whole other story. It's a blight on US history and I wish we never built an atomic bomb.

[Agent O]

Act of terror.

Cosign.

Everyone should watch this doc. Absolutely gut wrenching.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ5R5Gpn-a8

[Benjamin]

Coincidentally, I was having this same exact discussion with someone just last night regarding whether or not we were right to bomb Japan. What we both agreed upon is that bombing Japan was the right choice to get Japan out of the war, however we do not agree with the type of bomb that was used or the way in which it was done. I don't care how limited our knowledge of technology or science might've been back then, there's no justifiable excuse for dropping an Atomic bomb not once, but TWICE on Japan. If Robert Oppenheimer knew how devastating the weapon was after only TESTING the bomb in New Mexico, the United States had to know that they were dealing with a weapon that would have long lasting consequences for the people of Japan. Bombing with Napalm is one thing, using Nuclear energy to destroy a civilization for several decades is a whole other story. It's a blight on US history and I wish we never built an atomic bomb.

I think this is my stance as well. These days were fucked up for sure. Atomic bombs being used, Pearl Harbor, Japanese internment camps, the whole Nazi thing, and the sheer number of people that died in that war.

[Timothy]

What often gets overlooked is the fact that these bombings were just an extension of an already lengthy bombing campaign. The military was systematically firebombing Japanese cities for months prior to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki incidents. Tens of thousands of civilians were slaughtered before the atom bombs were ever used.

Yeah, the Japanese did some horrible shit and the bombings ultimately ended the war, but that doesn't make it right -- especially considering how the U.S. government so often likes to take the moral high ground in these matters. It was a goddamn act of terror, plain and simple.

[Blackee Dammet]

The entire war was 'a goddamn act of terror', that doesn't change the fact that at some point shit needed to be stopped and that's what got the job done.

[Timothy]

The entire war was 'a goddamn act of terror', that doesn't change the fact that at some point shit needed to be stopped and that's what got the job done.

Shit was on the verge of stopping anyway. Japan had nearly been bombed off the face of the earth by that point. Fuck, even Eisenhower thought it was pointless.


EDIT: I guess this fundamentally comes down to whether or not you think the ends justified the means. Personally, I don't, but I also have the benefit of hindsight.

[SuperDude526]

Jesus Christ, I was only saying that it's way too complicated for me to make a judgment call. It did great things for us and did horrible things for Japan, yet Japan was doing some very terrible things back then and yet so did we. You'll just go in circles, so I'd rather not get my hands dirty and just leave at that.

Also what Raymond said.


Other than the continuing radiation and high levels of new leukemia cases even today, right?

If that was true, I'd have been diagnosed with leukemia long ago.

[cloudscream]

The tragedies in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are where all that denuclearization and nuclear nonproliferation rhetorics came from. Those nuclear weapons of mass destruction should never be used again, unless there are some advanced extraterrestrial beings that will try to invade the Earth. Anything that can kill a huge number of civilians with such ease doesn't deserve to be glorified and can't be ethically justified.

The issue here isn't whether America is so evil or Japan is an innocent nation. This is about the condemnation of the use of such disproportionately destructive weapons.

[Dr. Octogonapus]

Act of terror.

By definition, an "act of terror" cannot take place between two countries who have both formally declared war upon each other, unless it's an act that directly violates any standing rules of engagement.

[Derek The Infamous]

By definition, an "act of terror" cannot take place between two countries who have both formally declared war upon each other, unless it's an act that directly violates any standing rules of engagement. Thank you. The bombing can't even be called an "act of war", because an act of war is an act of aggression between two countries that are normally at peace. America directly interfered with Japan's ability to import oil and other necessities and Japan in retaliation decided to attack the United States. The attack lead to America officially declaring war on Japan, and the rest is history. We were mistaken in using nuclear weapons, but we in no way committed an act of terror OR war by using a bomb. We were at war, and bombs are unfortunately a part of war...no matter how unwelcome they may be in modern warfare.

[Timothy]

There isn't any universally-agreed-on definition for what terrorism is. It all depends on who you ask. If the Japanese had launched a nuclear weapon on a major U.S. city during the war and still lost, we'd rightfully consider them barbarians for doing so and (in my opinion) probably would have charged them with war crimes just like the Germans.

I don't understand how some technicality somehow excuses a heinous act.

[Todd]

The mistake the US made was attacking civilians. Japan attacked a military base, we should have done the same. We had no business killing half a million innocent civilians.

[Derek The Infamous]

The mistake the US made was attacking civilians. Japan attacked a military base, we should have done the same. We had no business killing half a million innocent civilians. /Thread. Agreed exactly.

[cloudscream]

Some scholars say that the bombings were the prelude to the Cold War--posturing for the Soviet Union.

[Harlz]

If that was true, I'd have been diagnosed with leukemia long ago.

Errr...?

[F-ck Casey]

/Thread. Agreed exactly.

so, Todd says basically exactly what I said, and you agree, but when I say it, nah, BOMBS ARE A PART OF WAR. Except for the fact that, at the time, nuclear weapons weren't commonplace and we, being the dumb Americans we are and not knowing the full extent of the damage it could cause, we go ahead and drop 2 of them anyway.

There is a difference between a bomb, and a nuclear bomb. One is commonplace, one has no right even existing. I don't know how anyone can argue in favor of the bombing of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Fuck the definition, it was an act of terror. It was meant to SCARE the Japanese into surrender, and then made them dismantle their army. If that's not an act of terror, I don't know what is.

You guys, man. Too funny.

[Dean]

The tragedies in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are where all that denuclearization and nuclear nonproliferation rhetorics came from. Those nuclear weapons of mass destruction should never be used again, unless there are some advanced extraterrestrial beings that will try to invade the Earth. Anything that can kill a huge number of civilians with such ease doesn't deserve to be glorified and can't be ethically justified.

The issue here isn't whether America is so evil or Japan is an innocent nation. This is about the condemnation of the use of such disproportionately destructive weapons.
Aliens have feelings too.


so, Todd says basically exactly what I said, and you agree, but when I say it, nah, BOMBS ARE A PART OF WAR. Except for the fact that, at the time, nuclear weapons weren't commonplace and we, being the dumb Americans we are and not knowing the full extent of the damage it could cause, we go ahead and drop 2 of them anyway.

There is a difference between a bomb, and a nuclear bomb. One is commonplace, one has no right even existing. I don't know how anyone can argue in favor of the bombing of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Fuck the definition, it was an act of terror. It was meant to SCARE the Japanese into surrender, and then made them dismantle their army. If that's not an act of terror, I don't know what is.

You guys, man. Too funny.
Todd is just better at getting a point across, I guess.

[SuperDude526]

Errr...?

Because, as I've already said, I've been to both cities?

[Blackee Dammet]

so, Todd says basically exactly what I said, and you agree, but when I say it, nah, BOMBS ARE A PART OF WAR. Except for the fact that, at the time, nuclear weapons weren't commonplace and we, being the dumb Americans we are and not knowing the full extent of the damage it could cause, we go ahead and drop 2 of them anyway.

There is a difference between a bomb, and a nuclear bomb. One is commonplace, one has no right even existing. I don't know how anyone can argue in favor of the bombing of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Fuck the definition, it was an act of terror. It was meant to SCARE the Japanese into surrender, and then made them dismantle their army. If that's not an act of terror, I don't know what is.

You guys, man. Too funny.

Maybe because all of your points sucked, how about that? Sitting there screaming "act of terror, act of terror!" but repeatedly ignore the small scale holocaust the Japanese unleashed in every occupied territory. But when that's brought up, "Oh no, we do that too, that's no excuse, ACT OF TERROR!" At the absolute minimum, it was fighting terror with terror. Which would make it a war. Stop making it out like the Japanese bombed some boats, nothing happened for years, before Truman just turned to Churchill one day and said "You know I'm still super pissed off at those Japs for tearing up my harbor a while back... want to see something funny?" before trolling them with some atomic hellfire.

You just sat there and said you'll never be convinced differently, but this is after you've had a good 70 years to sit and ponder the issue added to from what I can only assume given your responses are clearly ignorant of World War 2 history in general, but it's not like you're ever going to be convinced differently.


Because, as I've already said, I've been to both cities?

Living in fallout for 60 years =/= walking through on holiday.

[Dean]

Maybe because all of your points sucked, how about that? Sitting there screaming "act of terror, act of terror!" but repeatedly ignore the small scale holocaust the Japanese unleashed in every occupied territory. But when that's brought up, "Oh no, we do that too, that's no excuse, ACT OF TERROR!" At the absolute minimum, it was fighting terror with terror. Which would make it a war. Stop making it out like the Japanese bombed some boats, nothing happened for years, before Truman just turned to Churchill one day and said "You know I'm still super pissed off at those Japs for tearing up my harbor a while back... want to see something funny?" before trolling them with some atomic hellfire.

You just sat there and said you'll never be convinced differently, but this is after you've had a good 70 years to sit and ponder the issue added to from what I can only assume given your responses are clearly ignorant of World War 2 history in general, but it's not like you're ever going to be convinced differently.
http://www.wfmu.org/Playlists/Monica/applause1234363884-1.gif

[Harlz]

Living in fallout for 60 years =/= walking through on holiday.

Exactly, thank you.

[SuperDude526]

Alright, but even so, then people of my generation who live there are far less likely to encounter that problem.

[ernieball003]

The mistake the US made was attacking civilians. Japan attacked a military base, we should have done the same. We had no business killing half a million innocent civilians.True enough, but Japanese civilian casualties would've mounted either way. If there was an invasion Japan had a civilian defense force estimated at 28 million people, armed with swords and bamboo spears. Not to mention that the bombings of Nagaski were Hiroshima were basically live field tests that ended it.

At the end of the day it's all about the bodycount. 120,000 dead from two bombs is better than any of the estimations, ranging from 420,000 to 1,600,000. It's not a fun pill to swallow, but it was the better option.


I don't know how anyone can argue in favor of the bombing of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Fuck the definition, it was an act of terror. It was meant to SCARE the Japanese into surrender, and then made them dismantle their army. If that's not an act of terror, I don't know what is.Call it whatever you want. I'd say it's favorable to scare to win than to commit an all-out slaughter. If Churchill could've dropped two bombs on Germany in '39 and called it a day he'd have done it in a heartbeat.


The mistake the US made was attacking civilians. Japan attacked a military base, we should have done the same. We had no business killing half a million innocent civilians.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoW2WYdOsvg
VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED WITH THE VIDEO

Because Japan was perfectly abiding by moral rules of war?


Some scholars say that the bombings were the prelude to the Cold War--posturing for the Soviet Union.I agree. It was a muscle flex for the United States and the USSR took it as a threat.

[deftonesfan867]

Act of terror?

Don't make me laugh.

[Harlz]

Act of terror?

Don't make me laugh.

Of course it was. The entire purpose was to SCARE the japanese into surrendering, hence terror.

[ernieball003]

Of course it was. The entire purpose was to SCARE the japanese into surrendering, hence terror.So is it better to scare or to force the Japanese into surrender?

And to play devil's advocate, the effects and consequences of atomic and nuclear warfare are better understood now.

[cloudscream]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoW2WYdOsvg
VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED WITH THE VIDEO

Because Japan was perfectly abiding by moral rules of war?


Who said Japan was innocent? The US wasn't perfectly abiding either. The video you posted is generally considered a war crime, even by the Japanese. The nuclear bombings, on the other hand, was done under the veil of "ending the war and stopping the evil Japanese," and are still being continually justified by a few up to the present day,

The "superhero" played with his new, shiny toy to save the world from evil?

[ernieball003]

Who said Japan was innocent? The US wasn't perfectly abiding either. The video you posted is generally considered a war crime, even by the Japanese. The nuclear bombings, on the other hand, was done under the veil of "ending the war and stopping the evil Japanese," and are still being continually justified by a few up to the present day,

The "superhero" played with his new, shiny toy to save the world from evil?More of a generalized response to the train of thought that America was wrong because they bombed civilians whereas Japan attacked American military targets.

My stance is that America committed the lesser of two evils.

[Blackee Dammet]

Who said Japan was innocent? The US wasn't perfectly abiding either. The video you posted is generally considered a war crime, even by the Japanese. The nuclear bombings, on the other hand, was done under the veil of "ending the war and stopping the evil Japanese," and are still being continually justified by a few up to the present day,

The "superhero" played with his new, shiny toy to save the world from evil?

The video he posted isn't exactly common knowledge in Japan (or even the US). The Japanese government , when pressed, will admit it was more or less a war crime, but they'll also go out of their way to ignore it, which is why there have been textbook controversies. America, on the other hand, learns about nuclear weapons and their effects, and the historical consequences from very young ages.

I'm also seeing a pattern of "WELL THE US WASN'T INNOCENT EITHER, STUPID SUPERMAN REDNECK IDIOTS!" in posts that will imminently either downplay Japanese atrocities or immediately try to counter with a "Well America ____ and __ and ___ so there!", and since those posts are usually followed up with remarks regarding Americas pride/ignorance of the bombing, it's a sight.

Those bombs got dropped twice. Massacres like Nanking and human experimentation labs like 731 happened repeatedly over the course of the war. They were stopped with 'Murikas "act of terror!".

[Timothy]

The video he posted isn't exactly common knowledge in Japan (or even the US). The Japanese government , when pressed, will admit it was more or less a war crime, but they'll also go out of their way to ignore it, which is why there have been textbook controversies. America, on the other hand, learns about nuclear weapons and their effects, and the historical consequences from very young ages.

I'm also seeing a pattern of "WELL THE US WASN'T INNOCENT EITHER, STUPID SUPERMAN REDNECK IDIOTS!" in posts that will imminently either downplay Japanese atrocities or immediately try to counter with a "Well America ____ and __ and ___ so there!", and since those posts are usually followed up with remarks regarding Americas pride/ignorance of the bombing, it's a sight.

Those bombs got dropped twice. Massacres like Nanking and human experimentation labs like 731 happened repeatedly over the course of the war. They were stopped with 'Murikas "act of terror!".

It's not like you can't acknowledge the Japanese war atrocities and still condemn the use of nuclear weapons. They're not mutually exclusive. I just think it's important to think about how we define things like "terrorism," "right," and "wrong." Some people look at it like the U.S. (and the allies as a whole) simply got even, but I disagree. It's all subjective.

I can't speak for anyone else in the the nukes-were-a-bad-idea camp, but I'm certainly not saying "AMERICA BAD! POOR, INNOCENT JAPANESE!"

[Dean]

I'd like to place myself in the "not really condoning it but not browbeating people with "ZOMG MURKHANS R EVUL" either" camp


Of course it was. The entire purpose was to SCARE the japanese into surrendering, hence terror.
See what Blackee said a couple of posts ago. If it was an "act of terror" on that basis it wasn't the only one, so defining it as such becomes redundant.

[Timothy]

I'd like to place myself in the "not really condoning it but not browbeating people with "ZOMG MURKHANS R EVUL" either" camp


See what Blackee said a couple of posts ago. If it was an "act of terror" on that basis it wasn't the only one, so defining it as such becomes redundant.

Clearly you just hate asians.

[Dean]

Clearly you just hate asians.
I hate everyone, and asians are part of everyone.

[Harlz]

I'd like to place myself in the "not really condoning it but not browbeating people with "ZOMG MURKHANS R EVUL" either" camp


See what Blackee said a couple of posts ago. If it was an "act of terror" on that basis it wasn't the only one, so defining it as such becomes redundant.

I wouldn't call it redundant. I'd say both sides committed war crimes/acts of terror.

[deftonesfan867]

War isn't pretty nor is it fair.

What's done is done, and quite frankly it was probably the only way it would have ended.

Also if anyone should be blamed for the death of all those civilians by the A bomb it's the Japanese government for being stubborn and not wanting to surrender even after the NAZI regime had fallen.

Probably a bit of irony in the whole Manhattan project story. Jew scientist who fled Germany to escape the NAZI oppression developed the A bomb which ended the war started by the same regime they were fleeing.

[Dean]

I wouldn't call it redundant. I'd say both sides committed war crimes/acts of terror.
That's what I'm getting at. That's why just describing it as an act of terror is redundant as an argument against it.

[cloudscream]

16 July 1945: The United States successfully tested its first nuclear bomb.

August 1945: Atom bombs were dropped on Hiroshima (6 August) and Nagasaki (9 August).

29 August 1949: The Soviet Union tested its first nuclear bomb.

2 October 1952: The United Kingdom tested its first nuclear bomb.

13 February 1960: France tested its first nuclear bomb.

16 October 1964: China tested its first nuclear bomb.

5 March 1970: The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was signed by 189 states, including the P5.

18 May 1974: India conducted a peaceful nuclear explosion.

1976: South Africa conducted its first nuclear weapons test.

28 May 1998: Pakistan conducted its first nuclear weapons test.

9 October 2006: North Korea tested its first nuclear bomb.

[SuperDude526]

I'd like to place myself in the "not really condoning it but not browbeating people with "ZOMG MURKHANS R EVUL" either" camp


See what Blackee said a couple of posts ago. If it was an "act of terror" on that basis it wasn't the only one, so defining it as such becomes redundant.

Basically this. It was a terrible thing, but it's in the past now, and the only thing that really ought to concern us is how we deal with problems of nuclear weaponry going forward. And as someone else said in this thread, if one positive thing came out of this tragedy it's that we do know now what a devastating effect nuclear weapons have on their targets. Imagine if we'd waited until Korea or Vietnam to drop the bomb.

[deftonesfan867]

Also think about this.

Nobody else has used a bomb of this magnitude on foreign soil since then.

Not telling what might have happened if the war had been fought at a much later time in our history.

[lpboarder]

Ah yes, the annual bashing of the US-nuking-Japan thread. First off, the folks calling it an "act of terror" watch too much TV news or John Stewart's "news" show. Act of terror this and act of terror that. "My neighbor committed an act of terror by poisoning my dog!" How stupid does that sound? I understand why it is being used in this day and age which is largely due to the worldwide media's job to sex up any event by some organized group that may or may not injure people for some causation. So naturally it translates to anyone and everyone calling a random act of violence to now be called an act of terror. The problem with using that term is it occurred during a war, World War II to be exact. In this setting, using the term "act of terror" for the Japan Atomic bombings is simply incorrect.


Act of war.

Fixed.


Next, I dont fully condone what the US did but I understand it. It was war after all and the US's push across the Pacific necessitated either a full scale invasion of Japan itself or bombing them back to the stone age to force them into surrendering. The former was to be avoided because of all the losses we had suffered on the ground in Europe and the latter (conventionally) was not working because the Japanese simply refused to surrender. So the US went bigger and badder and presented Truman with the latest and greatest (albeit deadliest) weapon known to man. And he opted to use it (them) to necessitate an ending to this bloody war.



The issue here isn't whether America is so evil or Japan is an innocent nation. This is about the condemnation of the use of such disproportionately destructive weapons.
That is war though. The top military commanders from the conflicting sides are not going to sit down and compare notes on who has what and complain "That's not fair, we havent developed those yet so you can't use those!" If you are big enough to pick a fight, you are big enough use what you have to fight that fight. Deal with the consequences later.

[Timothy]

Ah yes, the annual bashing of the US-nuking-Japan thread. First off, the folks calling it an "act of terror" watch too much TV news or John Stewart's "news" show. Act of terror this and act of terror that. "My neighbor committed an act of terror by poisoning my dog!" How stupid does that sound? I understand why it is being used in this day and age which is largely due to the worldwide media's job to sex up any event by some organized group that may or may not injure people for some causation. So naturally it translates to anyone and everyone calling a random act of violence to now be called an act of terror. The problem with using that term is it occurred during a war, World War II to be exact. In this setting, using the term "act of terror" for the Japan Atomic bombings is simply incorrect.

You're being silly here, not to mention presumptuous. So because someone's definition of terror is different from yours (and, no, my definition doesn't include "random acts of violence") the only explanation is they're some how indoctrinated by the crazy liberal media? The same media that championed the war in Iraq like it was a home-team baseball game and go on and on about Casey Anthony like she's actually worth valuable airtime? You think I listen to those assholes? Please.


Next, I dont fully condone what the US did but I understand it.

Now this is a sentiment I can get behind. Whether you condemn or condone the bombings, your perspective is inevitably shaped by nearly 70 years of reflection. Like I said before, I've got 20/20 hindsight on my side, so it's impossible for me to understand the milieu of the time. Now that's not to say someone can't have a firm opinion on the matter, but it is something to consider.

[deftonesfan867]

You're being silly here, not to mention presumptuous. So because someone's definition of terror is different from yours (and, no, my definition doesn't include "random acts of violence") the only explanation is they're some how indoctrinated by the crazy liberal media? The same media that championed the war in Iraq like it was a home-team baseball game and go on and on about Casey Anthony like she's actually worth valuable airtime? You think I listen to those assholes? Please.



Now this is a sentiment I can get behind. Whether you condemn or condone the bombings, your perspective is inevitably shaped by nearly 70 years of reflection. Like I said before, I've got 20/20 hindsight on my side, so it's impossible for me to understand the milieu of the time. Now that's not to say someone can't have a firm opinion on the matter, but it is something to consider.

Agreed.

We didn't live in that era or understand the perspective they were coming from at the time.

[cloudscream]

That is war though. The top military commanders from the conflicting sides are not going to sit down and compare notes on who has what and complain "That's not fair, we havent developed those yet so you can't use those!" If you are big enough to pick a fight, you are big enough use what you have to fight that fight. Deal with the consequences later.

Why are there such things as "war crimes"? And "rules of war"? Because there are things that are considered to be excesses, even in time of war.

IMO, the justifications for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (a military necessity in order to end the war?)are as twisted as the justifications for the bombing of Dresden, the Nanking massacre, and Hitler's Holocaust.

[Dean]

IMO, the justifications for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (a military necessity in order to end the war?)are as twisted as the justifications for the bombing of Dresden, the Nanking massacre, and Hitler's Holocaust.
It's been said already that the alternatives could have been just as bad, if not worse.

Look at it purely from that moment in history. Truman had what was ostensibly a quick and efficient way of ending a war where plenty of terrible things had already happened, and could potentially still have happened if it carried on much longer. He also didn't have the benefit of hindsight like we do.

If I wanted to argue for why it was a bad thing, most of it would probably be to do with how things have panned out since and not so much things actually from within the context of the war. Whenever I try to look at it from Truman's perspective I honestly find it hard to blame him that much. I don't particularly like saying it but that's the truth.

[ernieball003]

IMO, the justifications for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (a military necessity in order to end the war?)are as twisted as the justifications for the bombing of Dresden, the Nanking massacre, and Hitler's Holocaust.Atomic bombs were being planned to be used in Operation Downfall, the planned invasion of Japan. On "X-Day" seven bombs were to be used for tactical deploy and up to fifteen could've been used in total. Not only would you have the culmination of all atomic bombs but you'd also have the invading Allied forces exposed to the fallout as well.

Bottom line is that it was war and something had to be done. The bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had the smallest projected body count all the way around. For the lack of a better metaphor it's like choosing between getting kicked or punched in the nuts, each is going to be a bitch.

Not to forget the political implications. The USSR reached Berlin first and America wasn't about to let the Soviets reach mainland Japan before they did (the Soviets had successfully invaded Manchuria).

[ThaHandyman]

It was a great decision. If America didn't do it, someone else would have. Not sure why (some) people act like Japan was the victim. If you stab me with a knife and I happen to have a gun...I'm gonna use it. No one could have predicted the outcome and the recurring consequences, but better us know the consequences than having to find out in perhaps an even more vile way from a malicious minded country.

[ernieball003]

Better us know the consequences than having to find out in perhaps an even more vile way from a malicious minded country.Every country is vile and malicious-minded in some shape or form.

[Timothy]

Every country is vile and malicious-minded in some shape or form.

Pretty much. Things are rarely that black or white.