Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 51

Thread: Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,227
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Quoted
    60 Post(s)

    Default Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    So tomorrow I've a paper to do for school about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I'm arguing that we should not have used the atomic bombs, and I was just kind of wondering what arguments there were. So far I'm talking about the civilians it killed, the damage it did (buildings and such (oh, I was trying to find how much it cost Japan, but I couldn't find it anywhere.. if anyone happened to know, that'd be super helpful)), and I just need one more thing.

    Many thanks! ^^

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    knoxville
    Posts
    2,873
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Quoted
    70 Post(s)

    Default

    hardly any reasons why they shouldnt have, unless you want to say that killing is just wrong no matter what.

    we gave them a warning to surrender twice, and they refused. it is therefore japans fault
    <TViYH> i had a dream about you again awkwardsaw
    Malachi 2:3

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NC, USA.
    Posts
    4,429
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    4 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Awkwardsaw View Post
    hardly any reasons why they shouldnt have, unless you want to say that killing is just wrong no matter what.

    we gave them a warning to surrender twice, and they refused. it is therefore japans fault
    It was not Japan as a whole's fault, but the damned stupid emperor. There are several generals that had not wanted to have anything to do with the US, but the emperor thought otherwise.
    Quote Originally Posted by irc
    [00:55:29] < Guest3097> I lol at how BenLand100 has become noidea
    [01:07:40] <@BenLand100> i'm not noidea i'm
    [01:07:44] -!- BenLand100 is now known as BenLand42-
    [01:07:46] <@BenLand42-> shit
    [01:07:49] -!- BenLand42- is now known as BenLand420
    [01:07:50] <@BenLand420> YEA

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,227
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Quoted
    60 Post(s)

    Default

    And Japanese diplomats said they were wanting to end the war by surrender. So it was not Japan's fault. It was the emperor's. And the amazing propaganda the Japanese had.

    AND the scientists who worked on developing the bomb didn't want Truman to use it in Japan.
    Last edited by i luffs yeww; 03-11-2010 at 03:46 AM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    3,051
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    By the time the US dropped the nuclear bombs, they had already firebombed over 100 other Japanese cities in the dead of night and burned them to the ground, killing many, many more people than those two nukes ever harmed or killed.

    If the other alternative was to continue firebombing every Japanese city until they were all burned down, perhaps the nukes actually did Japan a favor.

    I've never thought about that until just now, but maybe it's true.


  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    129
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    @ Awkwardsaw
    are you serious? a warning does not justify killing of so many people, mostly innocent CIVILIANS. How would u like it if they dropped a nuke on your city ?
    A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.

    http://www.stats.srl-forums.com/sigs/4360.png

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,227
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Quoted
    60 Post(s)

    Default

    nikos, that was brought up in a debate we had yesterday.

    And tara, I was thinking about that a little, but I think I'd rather be killed instantly than die from suffocation/fire. I know that a lot of people died from burns from the nukes, but a lot were also instantly killed.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,152
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    It was pretty much absolutely necessary. All the Japanese civilians had been taught to fight if they were ever able to, against the Americans. Because of the way the Japanese were, they would just continue to fight until everyone was dead so to take Japan, they would have had to kill everyone anyways. That kind of shows in the Japanese people that they found "recently". They'd been on one of the unused islands i guess and they were found like 40 years after WWII ended and they still thought the war was on. Using the nukes probably saved a lot of Japanese and certainly a lot of American lives. In fact, they would have kept on fighting if they'd heard that we only had two nukes and couldn't continue using them.

    People may not have liked it at the time, but it was fairly needed if we didn't want to have to kill every Japanese person there to make sure they didn't turn around and attack us back when we left. For me the only real problem to using them is it may have been a bit bad for the future; what with Stalin being all paranoid and whatnot.
    SCAR Tutorials: The Form Tutorial | Types, Arrays, and Classes
    Programming Projects: NotePad | Tetris | Chess


  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    knoxville
    Posts
    2,873
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Quoted
    70 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nikos View Post
    @ Awkwardsaw
    are you serious? a warning does not justify killing of so many people, mostly innocent CIVILIANS. How would u like it if they dropped a nuke on your city ?
    ok, you are the emporer, i am truman.

    i threaten you by dropping a nuke on one of your citys, killing thousands and thousands of people.

    if you do not surrender, they will die. and you just let the americans kill innocent civilians, knowing full damn well that we would not have droped the bomb if you had surrendered.

    we threaten you again, not wanting to do any more killing, but still you disagree, and there you go. an other city of innocent lives destroyed, thanks to your ignorence

    if you cant see from that, then you truely need help
    <TViYH> i had a dream about you again awkwardsaw
    Malachi 2:3

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Williston, ND
    Posts
    3,106
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    3 Post(s)

    Default

    no one had seen the power of a nuke, the Emperor couldn't have known if we were bluffing or not.
    Proud owner of "Efferator" my totally boted main account!
    "You see, sometimes, science is not a guess" -Xiaobing Zhou (my past physics professor, with heavy Chinese accent)

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Wednesday
    Posts
    2,446
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    No matter how much you try to justify it, killing civilians in any war is wrong. Try to justify it as much as you want, but at the end of the day it was done to get Japan out of the war, not to help Japan and it's my opinion that anything that argues otherwise can only be justifying it as the lesser of two evils, much as Tara suggested.
    By reading this signature you agree that mixster is superior to you in each and every way except the bad ways but including the really bad ways.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,227
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Quoted
    60 Post(s)

    Default

    Brain, we tested it before we used it in Japan. And Awkward, we were already bombing the shit out of them, and we cut off all their resources.

    I did good on the paper, by the way. Wrote six pages.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,152
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    We tested it in New Mexico. No one else had seen it before.

    Quote Originally Posted by mixster View Post
    No matter how much you try to justify it, killing civilians in any war is wrong. Try to justify it as much as you want, but at the end of the day it was done to get Japan out of the war, not to help Japan and it's my opinion that anything that argues otherwise can only be justifying it as the lesser of two evils, much as Tara suggested.
    As i said, the civilians were trained to fight. They literally would go start attacking Americans. So if you have a whole bunch of civilians attacking you are you going to just let them? Japan basically made everyone in the country part of the military. So that doesn't really count here.
    SCAR Tutorials: The Form Tutorial | Types, Arrays, and Classes
    Programming Projects: NotePad | Tetris | Chess


  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Mukilteo, Washington USA
    Posts
    70
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I believe that it was the best choice of action. It brought an end to the war. It killed many people, but so would have the war continuing. What a good deal of people who bring up the fact that innocent people died don't think about is the deaths of the soldiers.

    18 year old boy gets drafted, gets killed on the front lines. Is he any less innocent? What makes a man guilty? Does a lack of innocence justify death? Many lives will be lost in wars, it's best to end them as quickly as possible.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    13,692
    Mentioned
    146 Post(s)
    Quoted
    130 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Cardin View Post
    It was pretty much absolutely necessary. All the Japanese civilians had been taught to fight if they were ever able to, against the Americans. Because of the way the Japanese were, they would just continue to fight until everyone was dead so to take Japan, they would have had to kill everyone anyways.
    You don't seriously think that this is true, do you? They certainly have a much braver and stronger spirit than Americans, but I think this is a plain exaggeration.



    The best way to contact me is by email, which you can find on my website: http://wizzup.org
    I also get email notifications of private messages, though.

    Simba (on Twitter | Group on Villavu | Website | Stable/Unstable releases
    Documentation | Source | Simba Bug Tracker on Github and Villavu )


    My (Blog | Website)

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    129
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    ok we blew up the world but we warned them! thats what your saying.
    A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.

    http://www.stats.srl-forums.com/sigs/4360.png

  17. #17
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    knoxville
    Posts
    2,873
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Quoted
    70 Post(s)

    Default

    no your wrong. thats compleatly not what i am saying. did you read my post AT ALL?
    <TViYH> i had a dream about you again awkwardsaw
    Malachi 2:3

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,152
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wizzup? View Post
    You don't seriously think that this is true, do you? They certainly have a much braver and stronger spirit than Americans, but I think this is a plain exaggeration.
    lol. Many of them fought by the "code of honor" and would not give up because they'd been trained as i said (Along with many of them having been indoctrinated). then in many cases, they were impressed into service or used by the Japanese soldiers. IMO, it was pretty much like being part of Stalin's crew in the battle of Stalingrad.

    So if you can find somewhere telling me why that's a large exaggeration, then please do.
    Last edited by Dan Cardin; 03-11-2010 at 10:14 PM.
    SCAR Tutorials: The Form Tutorial | Types, Arrays, and Classes
    Programming Projects: NotePad | Tetris | Chess


  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,227
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Quoted
    60 Post(s)

    Default

    Dan, Stalingrad was not a good thing. And soldiers whom take part in such actions (war, especially with dictators/fascists/communists who run their country) should not take the blame for any of what the country did.

    And I brought this up in the debate; the Japanese were not specifically horrid, blood-thirsty, mindless people. They followed their emperor, as they believed he was a living deity (or son-of/reincarnation/whatever. doesn't change anything, really..). If he were to tell them that America was good and to greet all Americans with love and compassion, they would have. And Japan had already discussed surrender with Stalin and Truman (or it might have been during FDR's presidency.. I can't remember. x] One of the two..) and Churchill. The main reason Truman used the nuke (this is debatable, and just something that makes sense to me personally, and probably many others, but yeah.. I dunno why I typed all this out, to be honest. ^^) was because Stalin was going to enter the battle against Japan and have an alliance with us (which is silly that we cared, since they were already part of the Allies in WWII, which you should know, Dan, since you've knowledge of Stalingrad). And apparently that'd be the worst thing to ever happen to America EVA! (x]), so we just nuked Japan so those 'filthy communists' wouldn't help us.

    Yay for 'power!'

    (I think it'd be good to know that I personally laugh harder at people who say men are powerful because they fight and shit, because power shows the weakest weakness in people; thus the more 'powerful' one is, the lesser of an impact he has on anything. So I'm a bit biased towards not fighting. ^^ I definitely love (not sarcastic by the way, I really do appreciate counter arguments because then I actually understand what people mean, and I fucking love learning (hahahaha x] damn I'm off-topic), so thanks to everyone. ^^)))

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,152
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    by mentioning stalingrad, i was saying that like the japanese in some cases, stalin forced all the civilians in stalingrad to help fight for him despite them not having weapons or training.
    SCAR Tutorials: The Form Tutorial | Types, Arrays, and Classes
    Programming Projects: NotePad | Tetris | Chess


  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Wednesday
    Posts
    2,446
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    Is it no different to the overly patriotic ideas that go around the US? Do you not think that many of the US civilians would take arms if people tried to invade? Just some food for thought.
    By reading this signature you agree that mixster is superior to you in each and every way except the bad ways but including the really bad ways.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,227
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Quoted
    60 Post(s)

    Default

    Oh? Where'd you get that information? Because I just looked up some stuff, and, I already didn't believe that, but this is what I found.

    "Sixty years after the battle of Stalingrad, which took the lives of half a million Soviet soldiers and about 150,000 German troops, historians still cannot say how many civilians died as the city was pounded to rubble during the 200 days of fighting. But it was tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands. Some had stayed voluntarily to help defend their city. Others were discouraged or prevented from evacuating to escape the Nazi onslaught. More than 400,000 civilians were in Stalingrad when the battle began on July 17, 1942..."

    They were not forced, but stayed voluntarily. Which makes sense. They weren't able to leave because they could have easily been spies/Germans/Axis. It's kind of like when a school has a lock down/out. Nobody can go or leave the school/classrooms. And if you were against Germany (which I'm sure many of the people in Stalingrad were, if not all (hell, they invaded them. It only makes sense to hate every German for the few that were commanded to invade.. Hmm.. Sounds like something familiar.. >_>)), then the only logical thing to do is fight. Duh. (sarcasm. Kind of comparing Stalingrad to America and the WTC and all that stuff. And how ignorant the majority of people were about that, and just wanted to kill every Middle Eastern person they saw/knew of. Damn am I sickened by people. Oh well.)

    ^^ There ya go, mixster! People in America don't seem to understand logic. Damn us.. :< Well.. then again.. America is quite a religious country..

  23. #23
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    knoxville
    Posts
    2,873
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Quoted
    70 Post(s)

    Default

    its not just america, its the whole damn world thats so ignorent and idiotic
    <TViYH> i had a dream about you again awkwardsaw
    Malachi 2:3

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,021
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    What is this nonsense about Japanese civilians fighting which makes it okay to kill them?

    You're saying /all/ civilians? including women and children, disabled people, prisoners, conscientious objectors and just people who were not overly patriotic? You say that all those people deserved to die?


    Perhaps dropping the first bomb could be justified a little, as a way to make Japan surrender. But there is absolutely no way you can justify dropping the second bomb just three days after, before the Japanese authorities had a chance to work out what happened. Three days is simply not enough to survey all the damage and come to a conclusion as what to do, especially with all the infrastructure destroyed.
    Join the Official SRL IRC channel. Learn how to Here.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,152
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mixster View Post
    Is it no different to the overly patriotic ideas that go around the US? Do you not think that many of the US civilians would take arms if people tried to invade? Just some food for thought.
    i dont really understand your point. I suppose you might have more civilians that would "sign up" or something of the sort. I doubt many would simply go, as civilians, and go-a-fightin'. Then again, i think that that's more people in general nowadays.


    Quote Originally Posted by i luffs yeww View Post
    Oh? Where'd you get that information? Because I just looked up some stuff, and, I already didn't believe that, but this is what I found.

    "Sixty years after the battle of Stalingrad, which took the lives of half a million Soviet soldiers and about 150,000 German troops, historians still cannot say how many civilians died as the city was pounded to rubble during the 200 days of fighting. But it was tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands. Some had stayed voluntarily to help defend their city. Others were discouraged or prevented from evacuating to escape the Nazi onslaught. More than 400,000 civilians were in Stalingrad when the battle began on July 17, 1942..."

    They were not forced, but stayed voluntarily. Which makes sense. They weren't able to leave because they could have easily been spies/Germans/Axis. It's kind of like when a school has a lock down/out. Nobody can go or leave the school/classrooms. And if you were against Germany (which I'm sure many of the people in Stalingrad were, if not all (hell, they invaded them. It only makes sense to hate every German for the few that were commanded to invade.. Hmm.. Sounds like something familiar.. >_>)), then the only logical thing to do is fight. Duh. (sarcasm. Kind of comparing Stalingrad to America and the WTC and all that stuff. And how ignorant the majority of people were about that, and just wanted to kill every Middle Eastern person they saw/knew of. Damn am I sickened by people. Oh well.)

    ^^ There ya go, mixster! People in America don't seem to understand logic. Damn us.. :< Well.. then again.. America is quite a religious country..
    from my AP US history class/book and my teacher.


    Quote Originally Posted by Yakman View Post
    What is this nonsense about Japanese civilians fighting which makes it okay to kill them?

    You're saying /all/ civilians? including women and children, disabled people, prisoners, conscientious objectors and just people who were not overly patriotic? You say that all those people deserved to die?


    Perhaps dropping the first bomb could be justified a little, as a way to make Japan surrender. But there is absolutely no way you can justify dropping the second bomb just three days after, before the Japanese authorities had a chance to work out what happened. Three days is simply not enough to survey all the damage and come to a conclusion as what to do, especially with all the infrastructure destroyed.
    First, the civilians in general (since they didn't really need nukes to go about killing civilians). If there were two groups of people, yours and an enemy's. Throughout the enemy's crowd, there were innocent bystanders. I suppose you would tell yourself that you would take the chance of allowing half your crowd to die because they had to selectively attack the non-bystandards, while watching out to make sure some of the "innocents" weren't actually faking such things and really fighting on the enemy side?

    As for nukes, imo the nukes really ended the war much more quickly and probably saved more lives. The idea that we could instantly do that much damage and the chance that it could happen again would very likely be much more of a deterrent than taking on casualties more gradually and such. I wouldn't really know if dropping the second one was necessary, but i suppose if i were to wager a guess, its that they were trying to make a large point. Japan had been losing hugely since quite a bit earlier in the war. The taking on of casualties didn't really seem to stop them. They knew that they were losing and quite probably that they were going to lose. I think that if they knew that America didn't have any more nukes then they would have continued fighting because there wasn't really much reason not to if they were working off of their previous strategy. I don't think anyone can clearly say that the second one wasn't needed, as no one wes there in that time period, and no one here was in the war, fighting it (then again neither was Carter, but i suppose decisions made during war times are never going to be perfect.). We're looking at it in hind sight and that always makes things a lot more black and white.
    SCAR Tutorials: The Form Tutorial | Types, Arrays, and Classes
    Programming Projects: NotePad | Tetris | Chess


Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •