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.
Originally posted by prototism
Yes. It would have been justified. An atrocity, no less. But justified, yes. Because if Nagasaki was justifiable by us, then the same argument would apply to them.
Its simple. I don't understand what you are trying to prove.
Originally posted by FlyersFan
To the OP - OF COURSE they were legitimate military targets.
No question.
The target selection was subject to the following criteria:
(1) they are larger than three miles in diameter and are important targets in a large urban area
(2) the blast would create effective damage, and
(3) they are unlikely to be attacked by August 1945.
Hiroshima was described as "an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focussing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage."
The Target Committee stated that "It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are
(1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and
(2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released.
In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the dead were civilians.
You're asking us to be devoid of any emotion or empathy. I can do that. I can see it from the outsider's viewpoint. It was a necessity.
Originally posted by Merriman Weir
Originally posted by prototism
Yes. It would have been justified. An atrocity, no less. But justified, yes. Because if Nagasaki was justifiable by us, then the same argument would apply to them.
Its simple. I don't understand what you are trying to prove.
The point "trying to prove" is that I doubt many people on this thread, at least Americans, would be so even-handed as to think that.
[edit on 12-11-2008 by Merriman Weir]
Originally posted by Grumble
Those of you who condemn the U.S. should speak to a veteran. My relative who lived through the war in the Pacific is a learned man who devoted his life after the war to saving lives, and he has no doubt the bombing was justified and necessary. It is a shame we are losing those memories. If you could understand what he and his comrades (and the Chinese and other civilians) went through at the hands of the Japanese, you might have a different viewpoint.
Knowing what I know, much of which I don't have the stomach to even discuss, I think it was justified.
Originally posted by prototism
You're asking us to be devoid of any emotion or empathy. I can do that. I can see it from the outsider's viewpoint. It was a necessity.
Does that mean I would have the same viewpoint if I were a Japanese man, living in Nagasaki in 1944? Probably not. But can you say you wouldn't either?
[edit on 11/12/2008 by prototism]
I agree with you there; most Americans (most people though really, in a similar situation) are one sided, selfish and hypocritical thinkers.
Originally posted by Merriman Weir
We're both even-handed in that respect, but disagree on whether it was justified. However, my issue is that I'd hedge a bet that the even-handedness aspect isn't a majority view. That the arguments proffered as to why America was right or justified in this by Americans wouldn't be acceptable (ending the war sooner rather than later, minimising further casualties &c) if it had have been Japan that dropped the bomb rather than the other way around.
Originally posted by stinkhorn
Peacnik hippys make me laugh with their ignorance.
Originally posted by stinkhorn
reply to post by prototism
It was not atrocious, it was neceessary and justified. So civilians died, so what, that is war. War is necessary as well, it allows the winner to call the shots and thus make peace and prepare for the next war.
Why dont you look at stalins peacefull reign and his killing of 60 million disadents that would not follow communism, he killed civilians without dropping a single bomb, does that make it better?
Peacnik hippys make me laugh with their ignorance. War is never going to go away, people are greedy animals that always want more power and they will use others, start wars and murder civilians to see those ends always.
Originally posted by Merriman Weir
If the Japanese and the Nazis had tried to end the war sooner themselves by dropping similar weapons on America, would it have been justified?
No mention of military bases as the criteria.
The targets were chosen to maximize the blast radius and to maximize the psychological damage,
In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the dead were civilians.
Originally posted by Merriman Weir
if ... the Japanese had been able to get to the American coast and decided to drop atomic weapons themselves, it would not have been atrocious and would have been necessary and justified?
Originally posted by stinkhorn
Peacnik hippys make me laugh with their ignorance.