
Probably Republican like the Bushes. ;) Bomb them till they give up.
But I can understand the use of Little Boy and Fat Man (?). As Stranger has explained, it really helped shortened WW2, otherwise who knows what the modern world will be like. And the Japanese could probably have reverse engineered an atomic bomb of their own too if given enough time.
Btw, that was Truman? What happened to Wilson?
Listen guys, all the analytical part of the 'benefits' of these two bombs seem creepy to me. Whether the war war II was going to extend or not, it's cannot be a justification for the horror that the USA put through to the people in Japan. :(
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 1089 100%
QUOTE |
LDS, The horror we put the Japanese through? Who bombed Pearl Harbor? |
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 1089 100%
One thing about Hiroshima and Nagasaki... After those two were dropped, nobody ever used one again on a target. It scared everybody.
It is interesting to note that less damage was done to these two cities than were done by the continuous massive bombing of targets over Japan and Germany... like Dresden and other cities. More folks died in the Dresden fire bomb raid than did at Hiroshima.
War is a hard and ugly thing. The US could have prolonged the WWII against Japan by not dropping those two bombs, but it is safe to say that the 3 to 1 ratio of losses and the Japanese heart to fight to the end would have cost an estimated million American lives and a couple of million more in Japanese lives. What they had waiting for us was a big surprise to the US military who realized how much they underestimated the advanced aircraft and guided bombs that were waiting in caves for the US fleet to show.
The Japanese mind was devestated by these bombs. Incomprehensible which caused a quick surrender.
I won't be popular here but I believe Truman was right in his decision to call a quick end with these two bombs.
I am actually writing a paper on this topic for my "Morality of War" class. My thesis is that it is wrong to use nuclear weapons either in war or as a deterrent. Here is one of the highlights from it.
When President Herbert Hoover saw exactly how much destruction those two bombs wrought it led him to say "The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul."
There are rules in war and the use of nuclear weapons break those rules. What the Japanese did at Pearl Harbor was a pre-emptive strike against a military target, but what the US did was a deliberate strike against civilians. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were of little import militarily that is why they were bombed so late in the war. Furthermore, what military targets were there were on the outskirts of the cities, but it was the heart of these cities that were bombed. The civilians were the targets.
Also, I believe that the Japanese were willing to surrender. They were clearly beaten at this time. The problem was that the US was bent upon unconditional surrender and the removal of their emperor. I believe that were it not for this unfortunate fact that the dropping of those bombs could have been avoided. This is however impossible to prove so the best anyone can do is look into it themselves and formulate their own opinion.
Something else to look into would be what is called the "Doctrine of Double Effect" These are the rules of war that I alluded to earlier that state when it is OK, morally, to kill non-combatants.
-Unferth