• 1

    posted a message on Was the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified?
    Also look at the first two pages or so. Nobody makes a decent argument that dropping the bombs was unjustifiable. You just say it was bad and that murder is bad and provide no evidence. That is what I was saying. Back up your statements and stop calling me an idiot when it is YOU!
    Quote from Greenfire32

    Sometimes to end a conflict, a show of force or dominance is required. (I'm not declaring the U.S. dominant, don't misunderstand my words here.)

    It's like when you argue with a sibling and a parent comes into the room saying, "ENOUGH!" The fight stops.

    That's "essentially" what happened (in a VERY small nutshell).

    So, yes, I believe the bombs were justified. Had they not been dropped, the fighting would have carried on. It was only after the sheer power and destructive force of those bombs that the world "woke up" and realized that the fight was over.

    If we, the U.S., had continued dropping atom bombs in an effort to "conquer" other nations, then no. The bombs were merely just another means of war.

    But we didn't.

    We used them to end the war. Not fight it.

    Exactly. Japan was not going to surrender soon and they were denying our diplomacy. They wouldn't surrender and so we had to drops the bombs or invade. Dropping the bombs saved lives, property, and ended the war much quicker than an invasion would have.

    Japan was not planning on surrendering and an invasion would have been terrible. Lives would have been lost and the war may have been fought for years longer. The lowest estimates are at about one million allied casualties. Dropping the first bomb was the most logical solution. I will argue that the second bomb should have been dropped a few days later because the first bomb alone might have been enough for Japan to surrender.
    Posted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and Science
  • 1

    posted a message on Was the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified?
    Quote from Emoticone1111

    No, not justified. There were a number of different things we could do- it wasn't just "drop the bomb and end the war or don't drop the bomb and let more people be killed". We could've compromised, even deceptively, which we were too hasty to do, and we could have appeased them, which we were too greedy and prideful to do. Heck, we could've bombed a military base rather than bombed an entire city full of innocent people just to show Japan and Soviet Russia how powerful we are.

    Both of the places were vital to the war effort. You fail to understand how total war works. Those innocent people work in the factories that produce the guns which kill your buddies. Therefore you have the bomb said factories. Both cities were important to war effort. Nagasaki being a huge industrial sea port that had been evacuated by many people prior to the atomic bomb. Hiroshima was also a huge industrial center and had a large military head quarters there. Then you also have to take into the account the fact that the U.S. had warned Japan numerous times that it faced complete and utter destruction if it didn't surrender and the U.S. even dropped pamphlets on over 35 Japanese cities warning its citizens to evacuate because the city would be bombed.

    Quote from CosmicSpore

    The human psyche is amazing, isn't it?


    Sorry, I don't trust you. Not at all. What I said was true.

    In fact, your opinions have dropped to the bottom of my "I give a crap about these things" scale.
    I could definitely argue your opinions with you, and I think you're honestly wrong in everything you just said. Yes, everything.

    Feel free to start with something besides your opinion, though. I'll wait...

    Then how would the war end? Tell me what the U.S. could have done to avoid dropping the bombs. You say that dropping the bombs was wrong, but have yet to provide an alternate answer. You can't criticize me if you can't come up with another solution. Also I explained why it was the correct choice on another post in this topic.

    Then you saying how "the human psyche is amazing" and trying to be sarcastic, but you fail to understand that I am the person who is using logic and reason. Your simply saying that I am wrong, but you fail to point out how I am wrong.
    Posted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and Science
  • 2

    posted a message on Was the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified?
    Quote from BC_Programming

    IMO, was it "justified"? No. it was not Justified. But you cannot justify most of the actions taken in a war by either side anyway. Was it necessary? Well, that's obviously a no. Did it probably result in a net positive? It's impossible to say. It's easy to hypothesize about alternate histories, like "What would have happened if the U.S didn't drop Fat Man and Little Boy?" but you can't predict what would have happened, or how people would react, or how different powers would interact. That's just self-assuredness.

    Personally I always found the U.S perspective towards WW2 disgusting. They quite purposely stayed out of the War for three years while tens of millions of people died, on the premise that "we'll be safe". The primary reason the U.S dropped bombs on Japan (rather than, say, somewhere in Germany) was because they never actually declared war on Germany at all; only Japan. And, of course, at the time, the bombs were dropped, Germany had already surrendered anyway. One could argue that somehow the Potsdam Declaration "justifies" the bombings, but there are two reasons I don't believe that is the case. First, the ultimatum really doesn't read as anything more than posturing. There was no mention of the Atomic Bombs or anything of that sort, so it was probably dismissed as Allied hubris.

    That said, one could argue that the bombings in many ways led to such things as the push for nuclear disarmament later on, and, as some people have pointed out, the realization of MAD during the cold war.

    Again though, I don't believe the ends justify the means, because at the time nobody could possibly have estimated the death toll either of the bombings or of the planned invasion (Operation Downfall), or balance them out; and, as many Allied force generals can be quoted as saying, the aim wasn't to reduce overall casualties- but only American or Allied casualties. Not that that is inherently a bad thing, but it makes the "justification" that they were doing it for good of all a bit hollow and ad hoc. It's of note that not mentioning the atomic bomb probably made the bombings possible, anyway; since they saw the planes coming and could have attempted to take them down with AA guns or intercepted them but the policy at the time was to not intercept small formations (to save fuel) as well as not fire using AA on small formations to conserve ammo as well as prevent the collateral damage AA guns caused.

    Note that the project to create the Atom bombs were more or less started simply because they new Germany was working on a similar project at the time.

    As for target selection, Hiroshima was chosen because it had a large military installation, as well as topographical factors such as nearby mountains; as well as it being a bad target for firebombing due to the large presence of rivers. The second target was initially going to be Kyoto, but somebody in a position of power apparently had a honeymoon there and liked it so that target was changed to Nagasaki (that's sort of a arbitrary reason...). Also, the plan was to keep dropping bombs until Japan surrendered. (Again: preservation of Allied forces was the goal, not overall casualties). At least it only took two, I suppose.

    Revisiting the ad hoc justification that it was "for the greater good"; again, that was not the intention. The goal was to save the lives of Allied Forces, not Axis ones. additionally, a poll taken near the end of the war showed that a rather large of the US public wanted the fighting to continue until all Japanese were dead- not just military forces, either. civilian Women and children, too.

    Also, one could argue that the Soviet Union's attack against Japan on the same date as Hiroshima was just as responsible, since it denied Japan the ability to terminate the war through Moscow's mediation.

    Justifying the use of the Atomic Bombs during World War II is to validate the use of Nuclear armaments. If it was "justified" then surely there can be a situation in the future were it is "justified" for the U.S to use the plethora of Nuclear armaments they probably have.

    it wasn't justified or necessary, but it happened, and you cannot change that.

    Japan was not going to surrender. The only thing that made them surrender was the atomic bombs. The expected allied casualties for invading Japan were nearly 1.25 million. Japan was not going to surrender. Russia had already started to invade from the North and the U.S. had started invading Southern parts. Japan issued a document which declared over 25 million of its citizens "combat ready". The Japanese military began to train women to shoot rifles, how to make bamboo spears, and how to use surprise attacks. Japan was preparing to defend their homeland even when they didn't have enough guns. Any man age 14-65 was supposed to be ready to fight and any unmarried woman age 16-60 was supposed to be ready to fight.

    The death toll for invading Japan would have been staggering. THE BOMB SAVED LIVES! Even when Japan formally surrendered many of its citizens resisted that and continued to fight on for years! There was one case were a small group of Japanese soldiers held out on an isolated island till 1970. The Japanese were planning to fight to the end and never surrender. An invasion of Japan just would have led to more bloodshed, more destruction, and more lose of life. It would have destroyed Japan's economy even more and would have also put more financial strain on the allied nations. I can't say the second bomb was necessary, but the first bomb was!

    Quote from Metadigital

    It's baffling to me to think that anyone would think that slaughter on that scale would be justifiable for any reason.

    Please make a constructive argument. If you can save 10 times the people by dropping two bombs then is there any reason not to drop it?

    Quote from Chapatrap

    Depends who's side you were on. I would sympathise with the Japanese. Some of the horrific stories told by people who were there at the time as children tugs my heart strings. An allied invasion of Japan would have been bad too but think about the people for years after who died of radiation poisoning, the people who couldn't have children and the people who lost their families and friends. The problem with war is it is between the governments, not the people.

    The estimated casualties for an allied invasion were around 900,000-1,250,000 for just the allies alone. Also the people were planning to resist any allied invasion and the government had deemed over 25 million Japanese citizens "combat ready" and were planning to use them as a key force to defend the homeland.
    Posted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and Science
  • 1

    posted a message on Was the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified?
    Quote from CosmicSpore

    You can never justify murder.

    Trust me this is incredibly justifiably and I will argue to the death that it was the correct choice. The only thing arguable is whether or not the 2nd bomb was necessary.
    We had a huge debate about this in history class and I had to defend it. The choice was pretty clear at the end of the debate.
    Posted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and Science
  • 1

    posted a message on Kids bully bus Monitor
    These kids are terrible and should be severely punished. They wouldn't do this if they knew they would get in trouble. She needs to stand up for herself and report them all to the principal. Getting kicked out of school would be to good for them. I mean they have the evidence right on the internet. Do something and report them. I had a teacher that this reminds me of.

    Quote from Lord_N

    Because there is so much that she can do about it without facing nearly endless lawsuits from angry parents.

    She could easily get them suspended and maybe even kicked out of school for being that cruel with such clear evidence. Maybe even a couple of weeks in a justice program or something like that. Whatever happens to them it is way to good for them.
    Posted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and Science
  • 2

    posted a message on Whites a minority In US
    Quote from Durracel

    but American isn't a race.

    But why do people need to know your race. It's not that important. We should stop identify people as a race and just identify them as people and leave it at that.
    Posted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and Science
  • 1

    posted a message on Whites a minority In US
    I honestly don't care. I think that people should stop focusing on race and just move on with their lives. By focusing on race you are only making the situation worse. Sometimes when I am asked to fill out a card with my details and it asks for race I check other and put American.I honestly don't care. I think that people should stop focusing on race and just move on with their lives. By focusing on race you are only making the situation worse. Sometimes when I am asked to fill out a card with my details and it asks for race I check other and put American.
    Posted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and Science
  • 1

    posted a message on Testing Chemicals on People Who are Facing the Death Penalty
    Quote from Durracel

    oh so torture now aswell. Thats a little inhuman and cruel isn't it?
    also the Injection can take UP TO an hour

    Yah but its not pain for an hour. We don't torture our citizens, that is for terrorists, and innocent people who our government thinks are terrorists.
    Posted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and Science
  • 1

    posted a message on The Communist Thread
    Not saying Communism couldn't work, but how would be implement it now and use the system correctly? Could you send me a link maybe?
    Posted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and Science
  • 1

    posted a message on Everything is Illegal
    Einstein
    Nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced.


    Winston Churchill
    If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law.

    "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." - Cornelius Tacitus (55-117 A.D.)

    I think these quotes speak for themselves. We should have laws that are enforced well and on every occasion. We should only have laws that make sense though.

    Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
    George Washington
    Posted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and Science
  • To post a comment, please .