The Phantom Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 I'm saying it is similar to a cheat code because it gives humans far more power than they should have. Nuclear weapons, simply, are 2 stronk. We can (somewhat easily) end humanity if a nuclear holocaust takes place, and that simply isn't going to happen with machine guns or aircrafts. I agree with most of what you said about the situation with the Berlin wall, and the Soviets, etc. But I think it was terrorism. We intentionally targeted civilians to create fear to achieve a political goal. It really doesn't matter whether we warned them or not, or whether or goals were just or not. Who decides what gives humans too much power? After all we created it ourselves. The study of atomic theory has far advanced our understanding of the universe. It has also gone on to become a prominent source of electricity. I find it confusing to say that something created by humans is too powerful for humans. Don't misconstrue this, I'm NOT saying nuclear weapons are not dangerous, they clearly are. The US did not actually target civilians specifically. They bombed major cities in an effort to force a surrender. Once again, the word you're using, Terrorism, refers to a small unaffiliated group that conducts secret operations to attack nations. Terrorists often attack both civilians and troops. 9/11 was an attack on civilians, the Pentagon was an attack on military. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
There Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Who decides what gives humans too much power? After all we created it ourselves. The study of atomic theory has far advanced our understanding of the universe. It has also gone on to become a prominent source of electricity. I find it confusing to say that something created by humans is too powerful for humans. Don't misconstrue this, I'm NOT saying nuclear weapons are not dangerous, they clearly are. The US did not actually target civilians specifically. They bombed major cities in an effort to force a surrender. Once again, the word you're using, Terrorism, refers to a small unaffiliated group that conducts secret operations to attack nations. Terrorists often attack both civilians and troops. 9/11 was an attack on civilians, the Pentagon was an attack on military. Who decides? Uh, who decides anything? That is why we are having the discussion. I don't care about atomic theory, this isn't about atomic theory. This is about the creation of nuclear/atomic weapons. The two may go hand in hand, but atomic theory did not necessarily lead to the creation of weapons, in which case I think it is safe to view them as separate issues. We created it ourselves? How is this relevant in any way? Atomic bombs give too much power to a single individual. The power to essentially end humanity, something that probably could not have happened with previous military technology. Were civilians targeted? We made literally no effort to avoid killing civilians. Targeting might be a bad choice of words, but we were indiscriminately killing everything in Hiroshima/Nagasaki. We even killed US/UK PoWs. I don't get this "terrorism must be secretive" thing as well. As far as I know, we were pretty secretive about the atomic bomb. Just as secretive as Al Qaeda was when they were planning 9/11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F CHARLIE Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 They were ready to surrender anyways, Russia surrounding them, Japan had lost their use of aircraft, and transportation of goods to keep fighting. If that was true (doubtful), no one believed that was the case at that time. How can using nuclear weapons on people, let alone civilians, in any way be justified? Why does a policeman shoot someone pointing a gun at him? To prevent the person from killing both the officer and anyone else. Also, there was an understanding that the population was armed and prepared to defend the country. Its still a highly debated topic In today's world we have so many ways to have near perfect information (although that weapons of mass destruction thing didnt work out) but then they didnt have nearly the same ability. Additionally, no one truly understood the after effects of a nuclear weapon. They had one test and then decided to use the remain two against Japan. Estimates stated that many hundreds of thousands of people would have died, on each side, if we invaded. In additiosn to that more of the country would have been destroyed under a conventional invasion. The bombings are partially credited with ushering in the longest period of peace n modern history. Although, it is possible that witnessing a test might have had thr same factor of deteran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Phantom Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Estimate of casualties: Hiroshima - 150,000 Nagasaki - 75,000 WWI Battle of the Somme -1,120,000 to 1,215,000 Brusilov Offensive - 1,600,000 Battle of Verdun - 755,000 - 976,000 Total casualties of WWI - 37,000,000 WWII Operation Barbarosa - 5,000,000 Dnieper offensive - 1,582,000 Total Casualties of WWII - 60,000,000+ Remember, nobody had access to nuclear technology in WWI, but still managed to kill over 164 times as many as both bombs combined. I'd wager that if you totaled up the number of people killed with swords or other close-range combat weapons in wartime, it would outweigh those killed by atomic weapons. Atomic weapons are not used by a single individual. Prove me wrong by making one and launching it yourself. Bonus points if it reaches it's destination. It was a massive team of the world's most elite scientists that engineered the atomic bomb, NONE of which would have been possible without atomic theory in the first place. That's like trying to invent a cannon without gunpowder or steel. Not to mention the weapon then had to be delivered. The typical crew size of a B29 Superfortress is 11. Additionally, if only a single plane flew over Japan, it would have been shot down easily. Therefore an escort was required, consisting of numerous other aircraft including their crews. The atomic bomb is not the weapon of an individual. It is the weapon of an entire nation. You really ought to consider researching what terrorism is. In no way was dropping an atomic bomb terrorism. Edit I'll throw this in as well. I've actually met and spoken with a Japanese civilian that witnessed and survived both atomic bombs. Trust me, the sheer devastation and the horror of an atomic blast is not lost on me. It was and should continue to be revered as a great tragedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
There Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Atomic weapons are not used by a single individual. Prove me wrong by making one and launching it yourself. Bonus points if it reaches it's destination. It was a massive team of the world's most elite scientists that engineered the atomic bomb, NONE of which would have been possible without atomic theory in the first place. That's like trying to invent a cannon without gunpowder or steel. Not to mention the weapon then had to be delivered. The typical crew size of a B29 Superfortress is 11. Additionally, if only a single plane flew over Japan, it would have been shot down easily. Therefore an escort was required, consisting of numerous other aircraft including their crews. The atomic bomb is not the weapon of an individual. It is the weapon of an entire nation. North Korea? Dictator has all control, is practically insane, and can singlehandedly decide to use these weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puddingkip Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Im pretty sure japan should have dropped a "gift" on us if we didn't bomb them first. Japan was nowhere close to developing a working nuclear bomb in '45. The Nazis were close before the Americans kidnapped all their scientists and the Russians took their bases, but since Nazi Germany was destroyed and all the scientist either in Russian or American scientist (or dead). I don't think so, we were in a situation of war. All is fair in love and war after all. Ay, but the Taliban are also in a situation of war. As is Al-Qaeda, but these are definitely terrorist attacks. North Korea? Dictator has all control, is practically insane, and can singlehandedly decide to use these weapons. The North Korean nuclear missiles are nothing in comparison to what their neighbours have Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Phantom Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 North Korea? Dictator has all control, is practically insane... Amen. I'll concede the point that he's nuts. For all practical purposes though I don't think we'll ever see another nuclear weapon used for war. We've developed the technology so much that it's literally overkill. Any nation with access to nuclear weapons knows that if they attempted to fire one, they'd be wiped off the planet. Even though Russia and the US don't get along all the time, both know better than to deploy the nuclear arsenal. It's a lose-lose situation. As nuts as Kim-Jong Un is, I think he is at least wise enough to know he would be signing his own death warrant if he tried anything funny. Even if he didn't know better though, his missile would probably be intercepted before he even knew it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AAAAAAAAAA Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Even though Japan did bomb pearl harbor and did ally with the nazi's during the time of world war 2, Merica didn't need to drop 3 nuclear bombs one of which is the strongest recorded nuclear blast in world history, killing countless civilian lives and ruining places to live in Japan. And also, Japan used regular bombs, Merica used nukes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F CHARLIE Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 North Korea? Dictator has all control, is practically insane, and can singlehandedly decide to use these weapons. Amen. I'll concede the point that he's nuts. For all practical purposes though I don't think we'll ever see another nuclear weapon used for war. We've developed the technology so much that it's literally overkill. Any nation with access to nuclear weapons knows that if they attempted to fire one, they'd be wiped off the planet. Even though Russia and the US don't get along all the time, both know better than to deploy the nuclear arsenal. It's a lose-lose situation. As nuts as Kim-Jong Un is, I think he is at least wise enough to know he would be signing his own death warrant if he tried anything funny. Even if he didn't know better though, his missile would probably be intercepted before he even knew it. I believe we should either not believe he has them or that they are of any threat. We can also say that we have no fear of a launch as we know we can destroy it before it goes 100 ft. Truth doesn't matter here, how on earth would he know the difference? Also, Im not sure his subordinates would actually launch the weapon. As phantom said, it takes a lot of people to make that system work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F CHARLIE Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Even though Japan did bomb pearl harbor and did ally with the nazi's during the time of world war 2, Merica didn't need to drop 3 nuclear bombs one of which is the strongest recorded nuclear blast in world history, killing countless civilian lives and ruining places to live in Japan. And also, Japan used regular bombs, Merica used nukes Dropped 2 and niether was close to the most powerful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seminal Inhalation Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 They were ready to surrender anyways, Russia surrounding them, Japan had lost their use of aircraft, and transportation of goods to keep fighting. Ready to surrender? Their entire army was basically brainwashed into completely dying rather than surrendering. So they could've either lost t heir entire army, including about half of their population and a good portion of France, Britain, US, and Russian army forces as well. We actually saved more lives than if we just went in and invaded them. The nukes were simply Ultimatums. Either surrender now, or lose your entire army. The 2nd nuke was a wake up call and they all came to their senses and surrendered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puddingkip Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Even though Japan did bomb pearl harbor and did ally with the nazi's during the time of world war 2, Merica didn't need to drop 3 nuclear bombs one of which is the strongest recorded nuclear blast in world history, killing countless civilian lives and ruining places to live in Japan. And also, Japan used regular bombs, Merica used nukes They dropped 2. And the WW2 bombs are beyond shit right now, iirc the US had 500 times stronger bomb. And since they were counted I wouldn't call the civilian deaths countless. And regular bombs killed way more people because you drop a lot of regular bombs and only a few nukies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
There Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Merica didn't need to drop 3 nuclear bombs I agree, and that's why we didn't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seminal Inhalation Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 Bombing Japan is not terrorism 9/11 is terrorism Murica We bombed them to save people. They bombed us to attack the world. Facts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSC159753 Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 Good, it would have been a waste of resources and troop's lives to try to wait for Japan's surrender (if they ever gave up). The death count would have been far higher if not for the US dropping the bombs to force thei surrender. Also, please guys bombing the enemy in war is NOWHERE near close to terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators OverduePixels Posted May 11, 2014 Administrators Share Posted May 11, 2014 I don't see how this could be good in any shape/form. Yes, I agree it did end the war but also cost thousands if not millions of lives of innocent women, men and children as well, so its a debatable question whether it turned out to be good or turned out to be bad but for me its somewhere where neutral stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professional Map Painter Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 If I recall correctly, Japan only destroyed some of America's weapons of war and soldiers. The Japanese still fail to recognise their war crimes, but in the end it was the West who armed them in the first place. A Nuke may have destroyed entire areas, but the death toll from an invasion would have been much,much worse. It would have been a Stalingrad/Berlin on a countrywide scale, and as defeat grew every closer, the ritual suicides would increase. Some would rather kill themselves, and others (including civilians), rather than dishonourably surrender. But then again, in a world where the Russians are rapists, the Poles are anti-semitic, and the Americans willingly use known Gestapo agents and the Germans are innocent, the Japanese aren't really that bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSC159753 Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 If I recall correctly, Japan only destroyed some of America's weapons of war and soldiers. America in the other hand nuked not only Japan's weapons of war but daycares, schools, stores, and many other things killing many civilians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731#Weapons_testing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes Let's not forget what they did to the chinese though, or pearl harbor (along with their plans for invasions on American soil.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F CHARLIE Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 The Japanese still fail to recognise their war crimes, but in the end it was the West who armed them in the first place. A Nuke may have destroyed entire areas, but the death toll from an invasion would have been much,much worse. It would have been a Stalingrad/Berlin on a countrywide scale, and as defeat grew every closer, the ritual suicides would increase. Some would rather kill themselves, and others (including civilians), rather than dishonourably surrender. But then again, in a world where the Russians are rapists, the Poles are anti-semitic, and the Americans willingly use known Gestapo agents and the Germans are innocent, the Japanese aren't really that bad. There is an important point here. The surrender by the Emperor relieved the shame of defeat that many Japanese may have felt ( thus stopping possible suicides). A surrender pre-invasion, to mainly the US, also prevented tge Soviet Union from getting any part of Japan (see East Germany) which would be an undesirable result. The only thing that brought about that pre-invasion surrender was the devastation from those two bombs. The Emporer, and many in the military, realized they would loose and risk obliteration to go on. The Emporer acted to not only save his people but also himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whopz Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 lol at the poll. nuking civilians = gud cuz murca fk yh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puddingkip Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 lol at the poll. nuking civilians = gud cuz murca fk yh It wasn't good to nuke civilians. It's never harm civilians. But if this prevents far greater damage then it is the preferable option out of two horrible options. Sometimes you have to do a bad thing because otherwise you would have to do an even worse thing. I voted good, and I'm not exactly a 'Muricah fanboy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whopz Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 so basically, the best way to get world peace is through brutal annihilation of "the enemy". ok ask a japanese citizen if they think it was a good idea. this website is predominantly americans who've been taught their version of history in schools Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zefrom Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 It is considered a war crime to use the atomic bombs now as they are considered WoMD I personally think that atomic bombs should not be used as it = massive destruction We should either vote for peace or just use chemical weapons (jk about chem weps) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F CHARLIE Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 so basically, the best way to get world peace is through brutal annihilation of "the enemy". ok ask a japanese citizen if they think it was a good idea. this website is predominantly americans who've been taught their version of history in schools Minimum estimates of the invasion: 400,000 US fatalities 5 Million Japanese fatalities Fatalities resulting from Nuclear Bomb: 185,000 These estimates are only the US estimates and do not consider Russian participation. Russia would obviously suffer fatalities as well as increase the Japanese fatality rate. These estimates are probable as German fatalities were between 7 - 9 million. The nuclear bombs were the best option for both sides. Japan did not surrender after the first bomb and its war ministers had not intention of surrendering. Their scientists estimated that we had probably three such bombs (which was true) and they had decided to weather those bombs and continue the war. After the second bomb the Emporer and parts of the military command subdued those responsible for that decision and surrendered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whopz Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 estimates are just that; estimates. there's really no telling how many people would have died. even if you knew already, it's not good enough to justify nuclear attacks. by that logic, any country would be better off nuking any country the moment a war starts because of estimates you can just pull out of your asshole the same worrying logic can be applied to any number of scary scenarios, but basically you're justifying saving lives with mass genocide based off a crystal ball and unknown maths. you're almost presenting the stats in such a way that the USA did the Japanese a favour by dropping 2 nuclear weapons on their island. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.