The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (your views)

Post Reply New Topic

What you're thanking God about is that the USA, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, Britain, France, and perhaps in the near future, Iran all have the potential to obliterate millions of people at the touch of a button. I'm not sure which god you're thanking. Is it Kali?

Back then Japan was already searching a "honorable" way to surrender. They could have surrendered quickly without the Bomb.

However, nuclear weapons do generally help prevent conventional warfare escalating to the kind of scale seen during WW2, if only by the expedient method of potentially obliterating any sufficiently large concentration of men and materiel.

On the flip side, they do have more than a little to do with the prevalence of partisan-style warfare (though in fairness that is alongside the sheer technological superiority experienced by armed forces, especially western ones.)

Generally the threat of M.A.D seems to have had the beneficial effect of preventing armageddon. The atom bomb certainly helped prevent the escalation of hostilities between east and west post ww2, especially against the vast manpower of the soviet union. The cargo carried by the Enola Gay was militarily speaking, a very big stick with which to warn the Reds against mayeb pushing just that little further west.

An excessively simplistic take on the situation. The Japanese goal at Pearl Harbor was to destroy our Pacific navy so they would be able to defeat us in an outright war. Did you know the Japanese government had already printed money for use in America? They hoped to invade and occupy us. How are we supposed to respond to that?

And by the way, the nukes at Hiroshima and Nagasaki have not created a positive feedback loop. If you would bother to check your history, Japan has not attacked anyone since we destroyed those two cities. They've completely abandoned their warrior culture, and no longer even have a proper military, at least not one capable of being a serious threat to anyone. In short, we scared them straight.

The sheer technological superiority of the west proved to be relatively helpless in Vietnam, in Iraq, in Afghanistan. It admittedly kills a lot of people, particularly innocent bystanders and no doubt, when a group of total whackos get their hands on nuclear weapons the effect will be magnified even more greatly but I doubt it will result in a world of peace and plenty.

Carrying that theory to its ultimate solution, it would be wise for the USA and Russia who have far more nuclear weapons in storage than they ever could find useful to take their surplus and distribute it to all nations, great and small, and warfare, by that logic, would become extinct.

hmmm, I wonder if 911 would have been more of a justification to attack Afghanistan with a-bombs, than Japan for Pearl Harbor.


Anyway, I don't think we can justify the bombings, it may have been "necessary" but that wouldn't make it justified, I mean, the update of the Geneva Convention in 1949 would make it very hard to morally and legally justify the act for repeating it again in a similar situation as claimed during WWII .
But the question is, would the US do that again in such situation? (hopefully not but can we be so sure? sadly it seems the US can get away with anything in the end)

I don't know about the details of the issue of the bombings controversy, there is an opinon someone posted on yahoo answers which I found interesting.

Simple really the bombings were necessary. That is the US needed a live test for analytical reasons, not to bring the war to a close. If that were true the bombing of Hiroshima followed by a warning of Nagasaki would have achieved the same result. The Japanese were on the brink of surrender, their navy destroyed, air force in tatters, and the population near to starvation. Also the US needed to stamp its absolute authority over Russia and this was a very convenient way to warn them of its power

But this is not the point that really matters, what is more vital is an understanding of the causes of war, the need for capitalist expansion within a nation state system and the role of the working classes in either prosecuting or preventing and stopping wars, it is after all they, not the ruling elites who fight them.

Rather my point, as far as technology is concerned. Things like tank and aircraft technology have become so superior to anything else going, that conventional battles simply dont happen, because the west almost invariably has complete air superiority, complete armoured superiority, and generally much superior intelligence and surveillance, not to mention total naval superiority vs most opponents. In the face of this, partisan warfare is really the only way to go, and its remarkably successful. In fact almost everything after Korea has relied on small unit infantry combat tactics, because almost every foe has suffereed from technological inferiority. the few opponents who could match the US for technology well enough that they might engage in conventional warfare would be limited ni the scope of that engagement merely because of the possibility of a tactical nuclear strike. Assume that the Chinese could muster an invasion fleet large enough to attempt an Overlord-style landing on the west coast.. a gathering of men and equipment that big would be the mother of all targets, and no doubt if their home soil was threatened, the US would react with the mother of all banhammers.

The problem with handing out nukes to everyone is a matter of stability. Many nations (and their leaders) are clearly not stable enough, and would be too tempted to deploy such weapons (probably in an unconventional manner so as to avoid "blame". Imagine the problems of each of the Balkan states having access to nukes. These are nations that still havent manged to work out where their borders ARE and who counts as living where. Giving such tenuously constructed places such power is like giving children fireworks. The long tenure of the Cold War proves that most of the larger states that have such weapons are well versed in resisting the urge to obliterate everyone. If the Americans were really that triggerhappy about nukes then the whole world would probably have been dusted round about the Cuban crisis, or possibly even in the period before the Soviet bloc developed a nuclear capability. They appear to be reasonably responsible about their nukes, even if they are a bit random on their conventional policy.

Considering what is going on in Afghanistan now your crediting the US government with maturity strikes me as absurd.

New requires Old, so Old is more important you mean?

The phrase "an eye for an eye" is from the Old Testament which is not Christian, it is Jewish. If you refer to the Bible you should at least know what you are talking about.

Original Sin is from the Old Testament, which is "not christian" which means Jesus was sacrificed for laughs and the new testament makes no sense?

The order not to murder is old testament too, so christianity allows murder? That would explain the bombings quite easily when you consider the majority religion of the US.

Christians use the old and new testament, jews use the old but not the new. There is crossover you know. That's like saying Jesus was jewish, not christian, so christians don't follow him.

"Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."

- Jesus Christ
(Matthew 5:17)

If you refer to the Bible you should at least know what you are talking about.

Since Jesus is credited with turning the other cheek you then must assume, I take it that it was an invitation to pluck out his other eye. Are you denying that Jesus was Jewish?

No, I am saying he was, but by your argument christians shouldn't follow him.

"Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."

- Jesus Christ
(Matthew 5:17)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4565LFdC_To[/youtube]

A christian can be described as a jew who thinks jesus was the son of god.

So, since turning the other cheek and plucking out the other eye are directives that contradict each other, which one would you choose as being a Christian action? It cannot be both.

President Truman authorized the use of gas and chemicals in Japan if we had to invade. Millions more Japanese would have died than did.

In addition to gas and chemicals we would have starved them out. We cut off their sea trade and virtually destroyed their merchant marine fleet. We would have attacked their fields and caused mass starvation. Figure 30 million dead, at a minimum.

ruveyn