Started By
Message
re: Do you feel bad about the US dropping the atomic bombs on Japan?
Posted on 2/25/15 at 7:41 am to pvilleguru
Posted on 2/25/15 at 7:41 am to pvilleguru
quote:
Sorry that I don't give a shite about these imaginary lines some people drew 239 years ago.
...and those of us who do believe in those "imaginary lines" don't give a shite about pathetic little asswipes like you.
Seriously, you're the sperm that won? The gene pool must be real shallow down at your end.
Posted on 2/25/15 at 7:43 am to SavageOrangeJug
I, myself dabbled in pacifism at one time, not in Nam, of course.
Posted on 2/25/15 at 7:51 am to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
I, myself dabbled in pacifism at one time, not in Nam, of course.
Absolutely nothing wrong with pacifism, until it gets to the point you will sacrifice your own in it's name.
Then it becomes ignorance to the point of dangerous to those around you.
Posted on 2/25/15 at 8:07 am to Legendary0903
quote:
Yes. A ridiculous amount of innocent, albeit brainwashed, citizens died. Men, women, and children. They died to force the hand of a few deranged men at the top.
Innocent people always die in war. The Japanese people considered it an honor to die for their Emperor and country.
I appreciate your compassion but in this case, the lifes lost in the bombings were small compared to what would have been lost had we had to invade their mainland.
Posted on 2/25/15 at 8:08 am to OBReb6
I only feel that it is a shame that it had to come to that, but I feel that it was necessary and saved millions of lives in the process.
Posted on 2/25/15 at 8:25 am to OBReb6
It's a little disturbing how insensitive we are, including myself, to killing that many innocent people.
Then we somehow group 9/11 in a different ballpark. I definitely have much more intense feelings over 9/11 because it hit close to home, I'm sure the Japanese felt the same way 70 years ago.
Then we somehow group 9/11 in a different ballpark. I definitely have much more intense feelings over 9/11 because it hit close to home, I'm sure the Japanese felt the same way 70 years ago.
This post was edited on 2/25/15 at 8:26 am
Posted on 2/25/15 at 8:28 am to skirpnasty
quote:
Then we somehow group 9/11 in a different ballpark. I definitely have much more intense feelings over 9/11 because it hit close to home, I'm sure the Japanese felt the same way 70 years ago.
We were at war with Japan.
Posted on 2/25/15 at 8:29 am to Vols&Shaft83
And the people who carried out 9/11 felt like they were at war with us. You can't just justify something because of war, it's killing people regardless of what you label it.
Now, bombing Hiroshima was probably necessary, I'm not saying it shouldn't have happened. But it is on every moral level still completely fricked.
Now, bombing Hiroshima was probably necessary, I'm not saying it shouldn't have happened. But it is on every moral level still completely fricked.
This post was edited on 2/25/15 at 8:31 am
Posted on 2/25/15 at 8:31 am to skirpnasty
quote:
Then we somehow group 9/11 in a different ballpark.
We group it in the exact same ballpark as Pearl Harbor, not the atomic bombings. Had you been alive then, you'd feel the same way.
Posted on 2/25/15 at 8:32 am to PrivatePublic
quote:
We group it in the exact same ballpark as Pearl Harbor, not the atomic bombings. Had you been alive then, you'd feel the same way.
Why do you think that is? Maybe because they both happened to us?
Posted on 2/25/15 at 8:32 am to skirpnasty
quote:
Then we somehow group 9/11 in a different ballpark. I definitely have much more intense feelings over 9/11 because it hit close to home, I'm sure the Japanese felt the same way 70 years ago.
9/11 was akin to Pearl Harbor rather than Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Posted on 2/25/15 at 8:32 am to pvilleguru
quote:
Civilian lives are more important to me than those in the military. Regardless of nationality.
To a certain extent, I can understand this point of view (even though I don't agree with it)
HOWEVER
You're operating under the false assumption that dropping the bombs resulted in more civilian deaths than would have occurred had the allies continued the war via conventional means and invaded Japan. Every single clue one can draw on says that isn't the case.
For starters, the neither the attack on Hiroshima nor the one on Nagasaki were the deadliest of the war. That honor goes to Operation Meetinghouse - part of the Tokyo fire raids. It killed in the general vicinity of 100,000 people and injured at least that many more. Some Japanese historians estimate that as a whole the Tokyo fire raids may have killed as many as 200,000, which would approach if not exceed the death toll from both atomic bombings combined.
Had the war continued, operation Olympic (the invasion of Kuyusu - the southern island) wasn't even scheduled to begin until October 1945 and Coronet (invasion of Honshu - the main island) wasn't slated until spring of 1946. At a minimum you're talking about 9 more months of sustained air attacks against Japanese industry and population centers. That may not sound like much time, but in fact the strategic bombing campaign against Japan didn't really start until November/December 1944 when the Marianas Islands were captured.
Another 9 months of conventional strategic bombing alone would have easily caused more civilian deaths than the atomic bombings, but it wouldn't have been just bombing. The one time we invaded a Japanese island with a significant civilian population (Okinawa), roughly 25% of those civilians either died as collateral damage or committed suicide. In terms of raw numbers, those deaths were roughly equal to the attack on Hiroshima.
Finally, there's the blockade issue. By 1945, the US stranglehold had Japan teetering on the edge of famine. Even after the August surrender, housing and feeding of Japanese civilians was very difficult. If the war had continued into the winter of 45/46, tens if not hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians would have died from starvation and exposure alone.
Some will argue that everything I listed would have forced a Japanese surrender without the bombings. Of course, we'll never know but again a look at the known facts suggest that it would have been sometime between Olympic and Coronet. The Japanese still retained large numbers of aircraft to use as kamikazes and a large standing army - not to mention the Kwantung army that could have been relocated (at an obvious cost lost to submarines) to the home islands to resist the invasions. Without the bombs, they weren't quitting before the invasion. Even with the bombs, there was a serious coup attempt by the army to prevent the surrender.
So do I feel bad that people died? Absolutely. Do I think the decision was correct? Absolutely. They saved vastly more civilian lives than they took.
Posted on 2/25/15 at 8:34 am to JustGetItRight
quote:
So do I feel bad that people died? Absolutely. Do I think the decision was correct? Absolutely. They saved vastly more civilian lives than they took.
This is a good summary. Was it fricked? Yes. Did it need to happen? Yes.
Posted on 2/25/15 at 8:36 am to skirpnasty
quote:
Why do you think that is? Maybe because they both happened to us?
In part, yes. Patriotism isn't something to be ashamed of IMO.
But also in part that they were both unprovoked attacks on people who had in no way had attacked them first.
Posted on 2/25/15 at 8:40 am to OBReb6
Not even a little bit. If we invaded mainland Japan my Grandpa would almost certainly have been deployed there and likely killed in action. My father wasn't born till well after the war. If we didn't bomb the Japs, I wouldn't be here.
Plus they had that shite coming.
Plus they had that shite coming.
Posted on 2/25/15 at 8:41 am to PrivatePublic
quote:
But also in part that they were both unprovoked attacks on people who had in no way had attacked them first.
While this is true, Pearl Harbor targeted military while 9/11 and the atomic bombs primarily targeted civilians. We have been present in the Middle East since the 80's, so I really can't say that we hadn't in some way attacked the terrorist groups that carried out 9/11. Granted, they are terrorists, we should be taking action against them. But from their screwed up view we were aggressors.
quote:
In part, yes. Patriotism isn't something to be ashamed of IMO.
I agree.
This post was edited on 2/25/15 at 8:42 am
Posted on 2/25/15 at 8:44 am to Patton
quote:
Not even a little bit. If we invaded mainland Japan my Grandpa would almost certainly have been deployed there and likely killed in action. My father wasn't born till well after the war. If we didn't bomb the Japs, I wouldn't be here.
Of all the responses in this thread, putting your life over 200,000+ is probably the most selfish.
And that's why I'm so proud of you.
Posted on 2/25/15 at 8:47 am to pvilleguru
quote:
I'd rather that happen than dropping atomic bombs over the general population of Japan.
Are you freaking serious? There are estimates of causalties being near 1 million just to take the Japanese homeland by invasion. Unlikely I would even be here to argue that we should have dropped the bomb over invading, had the opposite occurred. My grandfather, a veteran of the Soloman Islands, was likely headed there before they dropped both bombs and Japan surrendered.
Posted on 2/25/15 at 8:48 am to skirpnasty
Patton > 200,000 identical looking people
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News