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 sugarcookie1
I feel that the situation could have been dealt with in a very different manner.
Nothing justifies the mass deaths of innocent humans.
Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Hijinx
No the main points of attacking these targets was the fact that both cities were main manufacturing centers for the Japanese war effort. Everything from ships, to tanks and bullets.
Crippling these two cities was the only way to grind the Japanese war machine to a halt. And it did. The Japanese were NOT waning in their war effort. They were, in fact, becoming MORE fanatical. Something had to be done to not only cripple their ability to produce, but their resolve to keep fighting.
Originally posted by hellobruce
Originally posted by sugarcookie1
I feel that the situation could have been dealt with in a very different manner.
True, japan could have just surrendered.
Nothing justifies the mass deaths of innocent humans.
The Japanese were not innocent, who do you think were working in the factories etc to support the Japanese war effort?
This is just a case of historical revisionism, trying to blame the allies/hate the USA.edit on 26-10-2012 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by phroziac
Only the uranium gun type bomb was a test. The plutonium implosion bomb was a proven design from the trinity test. But they "knew" the gun bomb would work.
Also Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not reasonable military targets.
So yes, its a war crime. By the way, why did the little boy bomb do more damage?
Furthermore, a nuclear bomb is a device specifically intended to commit war crimes, therefore shouldnt be allowed. Atleast with a gun or a (conventional) missile, it usually hits what you intended and nothing else....and if it doesnt, its not the guns fault...could be a missiles fault. Nukes are intended to kill civilians, who most likely dont even want the war. And if the district of columbia ever nukes another country again, its time to end dcs ecistance
Even the "Fire Balling" of Tokyo didn't have a war ending effect.
Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by TKDRL
So I'm guessing you would have preferred the use of convetional weaponry?
How many bombing runs would have been necessary?
How many people would that have killed?
The conventional bombing of Japan over the course of the war killed far more people than both atom bombs combined. And it STILL did NOT achieve the goal of crippling the Japanese war machine.
edit on 27-10-2012 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)