It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should we have dropped the Bomb?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 12:24 AM
link   
Due to the debate people have been having over the topic of dropping the first nuke, in the thread "So, does the US have nukes as well?", I thought this topic should be given a home of it's own.

In my opinion, yes, we should of dropped the bomb. Firstly, we had already warned them that we would do something horrible to them. Here Truman states "It was to spare the Japanese people from utter destruction that the ultimatum of July 26 was issued at Potsdam. Their leaders promptly rejected that ultimatum." We gave them a chance to avoid destruction, and they rejected it.

Secondly, we saved more human lives by dropping the two bombs, believe it or not. If the US alone were to invade the Japanese homeland, it would of costs us over 1 million lives on our side alone, due to the kamikaze attacks of the Japanese. The Japanese emperor was willing to use as many of his own people's lives as it took to fight of the US - "Wartime records and memoirs show that the emperor and some of his aides wanted to end the war by summer 1945. But they were vacillating and couldn't prevail over a military that was determined to keep going even if that meant, as a navy official urged at one meeting, "sacrificing 20 million Japanese lives." Even the minister of the navy at the time said that the A-bomb was "a gift from heaven" The chief cabinet secretary in 1945, Hisatsune Sakomizu, claims "The atomic bomb was a golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war."

By dropping the bomb, we gave Japan a shock that showed them we were willing to end the war by using these weapons on their cities. But also, we were able to save more lives by giving Japan this shock. If we had tried to invade the Japanese mainland, we would of lost a generation of men on both sides.

Source:
www.cnn.com...

www.trumanlibrary.org...

[edit on 26-7-2004 by Slayer]




posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 12:42 AM
link   
It may not sound like it was the best choice, but now it seems like it was. Many more lives were spared at the cost of those who died from the bombings.



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 01:08 AM
link   
exactly

no bomb usage would result in millions upon millions dead.



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 03:32 PM
link   
If we hadn't dropped it, someone else would have eventually. If the technology exists, it will be used. Can't close Pandora's box.

Unfortuantely there had to be an example of the horror involved and that is probably one of the reasons it hadn't happened again. The world needed to know. We can hope those horrible pictures of the devestation in Japan that we have all seen, would make any world power think twice before taking that final ugly step.



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Just to play devils advocate....lets take this thought into consideration: was it RIGHT to drop two atomic bombs on CIVILIAN cities instead of military only bases?

The fact remains that it won the war, and it saved many lives of the US and Japanese armies and citizens alike. But heres the question, was it right to drop two atomic bombs on major civilian cities? could the war have been ended by just hitting military bases instead? I mean in the end, if they hit the military bases, it would've shown Japan still how destructive the weapon was, and without civilian death.



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar
Just to play devils advocate....lets take this thought into consideration: was it RIGHT to drop two atomic bombs on CIVILIAN cities instead of military only bases?

The fact remains that it won the war, and it saved many lives of the US and Japanese armies and citizens alike. But heres the question, was it right to drop two atomic bombs on major civilian cities? could the war have been ended by just hitting military bases instead? I mean in the end, if they hit the military bases, it would've shown Japan still how destructive the weapon was, and without civilian death.


But the purpose of bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't to show the awesome power of nuclear weapons. It was done based on the estimates that this would accomplish the occupation of Japan with the least number of casualties to Allied military forces.

But therein also lies the moral issue of the justification of killing civilians to in order to spare combatants. In most just theories of war, this is not allowed.

Actually, to claim it is justified for combatants to target civilians is right at the heart of the argument for terrorism.

One could only hope that the horrific results of using such weapons would work as a deterrent so the act is never repeated. Though I seriously doubt it.



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 04:49 PM
link   
That is only one aspect to the"dropping of the bomb." Yes, it saved lives on both side, as the Japanese fought harder as the fighting got closer to the main islands. BUT the bombS were also a message to Russia, this was probably why there were 2 not 1. We have it, we will use it and we have more. The birth of the Cold War.



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 05:04 PM
link   
The dropping of the bomb did not target the military or the government but it destroy the civilian population while the military was not hit so in other worlds US targeted the civilian population.

Now a days this will have been seen as barbaric, but back then the mentality was different.

I can no say it was right or wrong but I will say after the results of the bomb no country will do this again.

And this is just an opinion.



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Sorry Marg, you missed the point. The fact that it actually saved Japanese lives is irrelivant, they would have fought to the end. It saved American soldiers AND it sent a message to Russia, even Patton knew that they were the next nemesis. Guess he was right.



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Yes at the expenses of human life and the results of the radiation that lasted for decades I see the point.



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 05:16 PM
link   
That dropping of the bomb was justified. Millitary experts even now say that an assualt on Japan would've resulted in many Allied deaths, the war would've conitnued on for many more years. The Japanese did not surrender, they would always die in combat. By dropping them bomb twice it showed them that we would'nt stop either.

Also it did show Russia that if you were going to backstabb us anytime soon Moscow would meet the same fate as Nagasaki or Hiroshima.



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by JediMaster
That dropping of the bomb was justified. Millitary experts even now say that an assualt on Japan would've resulted in many Allied deaths, the war would've conitnued on for many more years. The Japanese did not surrender, they would always die in combat. By dropping them bomb twice it showed them that we would'nt stop either.

Also it did show Russia that if you were going to backstabb us anytime soon Moscow would meet the same fate as Nagasaki or Hiroshima.


You got the point exactly. Saved American soldiers lives, sent a message to Moscow and probably saved some Japanese lives, in the long run. See a running topic here, it ALL benefitted America. Rah,Rah,Rah.



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 06:33 PM
link   
heres another question, just to poke and prod, I really wanna see other peoples opinions on this, so I rather not state mine. Here's my question.

What would happen if the U.S. used a nuke in a war today, that targeted a city, in order to prevent many more deaths on both sides ( a war with china, for example)

-How would the world react?
-How would you personally react/feel about it?
-Would it be justified in today's era?



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 06:41 PM
link   
[edit on 7-26-2004 by WolfofWar]



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 07:08 PM
link   
WolfofWar

It is hard to say due to the fact that human rights in the world are more vocal about what is going on and US will be condemn by the international community, the world is heavy populated as now and casualties will be something that can not be taken for granted.



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ambient Sound
Unfortuantely there had to be an example of the horror involved and that is probably one of the reasons it hadn't happened again. The world needed to know. We can hope those horrible pictures of the devestation in Japan that we have all seen, would make any world power think twice before taking that final ugly step.


With respect to the above and the point about the Soviets.

In my opinion a demonstration could have been arranged, or the bomb dropped on a Japanese military base in the south pacific.

Dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki' civilians was wrong.



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 10:46 PM
link   
if we didnt the japanese would of built one them selves. they already had bioweapons and used them in china and were developing a long range bombers to use them on the western US. i saw it on the history channel today. very intresting.



posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 11:13 PM
link   
From what I heard the US military sent 2 bombers in case one plane fell during combat. The order to drop the bombs was passed, after translators misinterpreted the fact that the Japanese surrendered and were willing to listen to negotiations.

On the other hand if the US were to excercise the use of nuclear weapons on any city. All othere countries would retaliate by going to war with the states. It would put them on the edge. It would be seen as the US imposing its regulations by force. It would also mean an end to democracy.



posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 01:53 AM
link   
I Wish I was there to release the bomb bay doors. Anyway it was necessary, because of the many lives SAVED by it.



new topics




 
0

log in

join