The Abomb saved lives.

[brxndxn]

It was estimated that it would take the deaths of over one-million US soldiers to take Japan. That figure doesn't include the coutless Japanese lives that would be lost. At the time, the 200,000 (high estimate) lives that were lost because of the two Abombs was a much better alternative. In my opinion, the Abomb was the best possible option to end the war in the quickest, most humane way. Humane - I think the Abomb is much more humane than a practically never-ending ground war of over a million soldiers.

The US did not start the war. I'm sick of seeing people criticizing anything and everything of the United States. I am even sicker because many of us aren't even supportive of the US. At least in the United States, if you don't like it here, you CAN leave.

Democracy is the worst form of government until you've considered all the others.
-- Some guy that I can't remember mentioned in POS2041

 

[uwantasumwang]

agreed.... totally agreed

 

[etech]

Winston was a great source of quotes.

Winston Churchill
"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others."

And yes, I agree, though the bombs were terrible, an invasion would of been worse and cost many more casualties on both sides.

 

[yakko]

It was the best way to end the war but it was not the most humane. Humane and war rarely ever go togther.

 

[Buddhist]

i'm with yakko...though i differ in thinking the second bomb was utterly unnecessary...
-M.T.O

 

[desertdweller]

<< Winston was a great source of quotes.

Winston Churchill
&quot;Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others.&quot;

And yes, I agree, though the bombs were terrible, an invasion would of been worse and cost many more casualties on both sides. >>




Most people forget that Japan was warned before hand, they didn't
believe.

After the first bomb they didn't surrender because they didn't believe
the U.S. could do it more than once.


DD

 

[CarpeDeo]

I dunno . . . it's a hard debate . . . and I don't think either side can say they were justified in their actions. Like Yakko says, in war, it's often impossible to act justly and humanely.

My main problem is that the A-bomb was used to attack a civilian target rather than a military target. Even Pearl Harbor (as malicious and unjust as it was) was an attack on US military, not civilians. And I know that war always involves civilians, but I don't think it's justifiable for the US since they took advantage of civilian deaths to end the war.

 

[etech]

The cities that were targeted all had military manufacturing plants located in them.

 

[goog40]

John Wayne would agree.

Maybe it was the quickest way to end the war, but to drop the bomb without knowing the after-effects was pretty stupid

 

[RossGr]

First off let us state that the modern Japanese government is a very different creature than that of 60-70 yrs ago. Any who consider themselves Japanese please read this with historical perspective.


The Japanese war machine did not discriminate between military and civilian targets. Ask the populations of Korea and Mongolia. We were ingaged it TOTAL war this was established by both the Germans and the Allies in Euorope where both sides bomed population centers repeatedly. The invasion of Japan, made necessary by their refusal to surrender, would have cost millions of Japanese lives, civilian and military. The bomb, as devastating as it was, saved Japanese as well as American and Russian lives.

The US remains the ONLY country ever to intentionly use atomic weapons on population centers. This alone may have kept the Soviet Union at bay at differnt points in the last 50yrs. We have it and We WILL use it. Scary thought huh!

 

[etech]

goog40, people on both sides were dying every day. Are you suggesting that we should of held off until a one or two year research project could of been completed before dropping the bombs?

RoosGr, good point, this is not about Asians or Asian bashing. The Japanese government at that time was militaristic. It has nothing to do with individual Asians of today.

I do not believe they would have surrendered without a shock to force them. Even after the Emperor stated his intention to surrender a portion of the miltary attempted a coup so that they could continue fighting.

CarpeDeo, do some research on &quot;The Rape of Nanking&quot;, then come back and discuss it with us.

 

[coolVariable]

@RossGr:


<< TOTAL war this was established by both the Germans and the Allies in Euorope where both sides bomed population centers repeatedly >>


WRONG!! If you knew your history that this was started by the British in Europe and by the Japanese in Asia!
Germany DID NOT attack civilian targets during the first sages of the war until it started loosing the war!
The british were the ones to attack SOLELY CIVILIAN targets just to demoralize the enemy.

 

[amb#cog]

Yes they struck at Berlin, before Germany bombed London. Britain was beyond desperate at that point, and basically had to do anything, no matter how drastic, to take away Germanys momentum at that point.

 

[IcemanJer]

Hm.. wait a min, I thought the firebombing of Berlin, Dresden, etc. etc. (can't remember the other cities' names) occured in Feb 1942 (sh!t, or was it 1943..???), which would be after the Battle of London?

 

[Phil21]

Totally agreed, pisses me off how yiddiots (that of course live in the US and live off it's wealth and freedom) say that the attack on perl harbor was a perfectly fine event, while the dropping of the A-bombs was cowardly and dastardly.

Let's examine:

Attack on Perl Harbor: Japanese and US governments actively involved in peace talks. Japanese totally leading on the US about how well the talks are going. Then, using these talks VERY MUCH to their advantage they do a sneak-attack on Pearl Harbor. Granted, all wars have to start somewhere, but they were very two-faced up until the event.

A-Bomb dropping: US was in a war they did not start, at her self defense. Victory WAS ours eventually, but the war in the pacific was quickly turning into a very terrible war of attrition as the Japanese would have never surrendered. Millions of lives (on both sides) would have been lost. IMO, it's better to end the lives of 300,000 of the enemy then even have 5,000 of your own people die needlessly. But, it saved over a million (est.) American lives, and by most estimates definitely resulted in a net-life-savings of the Japanese as well. Hell, we even warned them before dropping! What more do you want? Us to just lay down and say &quot;take us over, we don't want to hurt you guys!&quot;. sigh.

In short, the US dropped the bomb to quickly end a war it did not start. The Japanese started a war, while talking peace.

And it's perfectly OK for me to cheer when I see a movie when a Japanese Zero gets shot down. They were shooting at our poeple! This has nothing to do with todays present-day situation, or with a race at all. It has to do with a country who was attempting to destroy us, and us fighting them. In fact, the Japanese are usually very honorable people. The militaristic government of the time however, was not. How many times do you see the US torturing POW's until death?

I am *SO* sick and tired of people crying racism constantly over frickin everything. Get the hell out of the country if you don't support it and hate it so much.

-Phil

 

[Pyro]

civilian targets started getting bombed in britain and germany after a german bomber mistakenly bombed some civilians (after orders from hitler were not bomb civilian targets). This got the Brits mad, they started targeting german civilians, which got the germans mad and they started with the V2s over london...

 

[RossGr]

coolVariable:

Actually I believe that the first bombing of a population center was an accident on the part of Germany. Air Navigation of the era simply was not of the level that you could reliably arrive at a precise target.

If you read my post I made no effort to specify who STARTED the war on civilians, my intend was to point out that by 1945 it was well established as a fact of war.

 

[Plantanthera]

Civilians are the one that get the short end of the stick in every conflict/war. Just read some history book and see what armies/conquerors have done to cities as a physiological tactic to conquer neighboring cities/countries.

 

[Double Trouble]

Even if the A-bombs did not 'save lives' in the long run for both sides, so what?? You mess with the bull, you get the horns. The Japanese messed with the bull by using a cowardly attack on the fleet still in the harbor on an 'enemy' upon which they had not officially declared war. The US lost many good people fighting back against the Japanese agression. Why should the US have lost even 1 single extra soldier in the effort to make Japan surrender??

Hindsight and all the politicall correctness BS have skewed our vision. Look at it like the people back then would have looked at it. They were sick of fighting a war and losing lives to Japan - even if they were slowly driving them back from each island. The quickest way to end that would be to nuke a couple of cities -- which they did. End of story.

Does this reflect on people of Japanese or Asian descent? No, it was a specific part of a military action against an agressor, it has nothing to do with Asian-bashing.

 

[Muerto]

I can agree with the first one. It probably did save more lives than it killed. But droping a second one was wrong. Japan was planning to surrender before the second bomb was dropped. They were going to announce it in several days but then the Americans bombed Nagasaki earlier because they were afraid that bad weather was coming and it would hide the target. Why do you have to worry about bad weather when droping nukes? As long as you're over the city you WILL hit it!

 

[TuffGuy]

this is a pointless argument. drop it.

 

[amb#cog]

Actually I think the story does go that Germany missed their real target, and hit civilians in Britain, then Britain retaleated by bombing Berlin. Then Germany started to bomb London.

etech I did a little research on &quot;The Rape of Nanking&quot;. Kinda wish I didn't.

Man it's amazing to think what horrors went on then, and realize it was only 60, or so years ago!!! :Q

 

[RossGr]

Yeah, but the Nagasaki bomb did miss. It empacted in a valley adjacent to the population center and did not cause near the death toll of the Hiroshima bomb.

Historically wars have had very harsh impact on civilian populations. In ancient times if a city resisted beseiging forces it was understood that the conquering army had free run of the city for rape and pillage after a victory.

 

[Plantanthera]

amb#cog - Do a little more research on the desert storm on Amnesty International and see what the American did in the war 10 years ago. Then look into the Afghanistan, Indonesia, etc... to see what kind of tragedies human still inflict upon each others in our modern world.

 

[MustangSVT]

i guess both points are valid, but what is the point of debating most humane way of killing a person? and lot of the numbers came up, but it's a war... what rational humane thing is there out of war?