CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki a good thing?
This subject has been rised to my attention. We were discussing this in my english class. Some say that if the Americans had not bombed Japan then Japan would have never surrendered. Others say that atomic bombing Japan, twice, was too far. I would like to remind you that any swearing/bad language on ANY of my debates is not tolerated. Thank you.
Resulted in the Cold War, the nuclear military age, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of little yellow people, other bad stuff. And we ended up giving in to conditional surrender anyway, so it was pointless as well.
This is pretty funny: hundreds of people here on CD, pretend to be Judge arrogating the power to acquit a cruelty, as the WW II has been, ignoring a simple common sense which aims to respect the whole world. But surely, you would answer me: "what would have happened if...". How the hell you can even think to be correct killing thousands of people for something that could have happened? Maybe you dont know that people more preparated in history have already talked about this, and them all have agreed and decreed that event the nth mistake of the human race. Of course Usa didnt pay anything for its cruelties, as you can clearly see, they are doing whatever they want to in Middle East: killing civilians, for example. But, yeah, of course this is correct too: what would happen if Usa armies were not in Middle East massacrating civilians??
The only argument I see as reasonable for the bombing is to intimidate the Japanese into submission. However, was what was done the only way to do this?
It is perfectly reasonable to me for a nuclear weapon to be used on a deserted island somewhere near Japan, or away from a civilian population, in order to minimize deaths. Obviously this is far from ideal, and would have most probably ended up in thousands of deaths. However, anything that can be done to save tens of thousands more is worth doing.
Ending the war was not wrong, but how the Americans did it was most certainly awful. And the second bomb was completely unnecessary.
Okay...I've done a lot of research on this topic, and it certainly doesn't make me as angry as it used to. I can definitely see many of the other arguments now. I acknowledge that it ended the war much earlier, and that a sense of imminence was felt at the time.
But there are still several things wrong with it. First, the whole Japan-would-have-surrendered-anyway argument: Well, would they have? From my perspective, it seemed like they were going to, but guess what? Now we're never going to know. Also, it was immoral, obviously. The ends don't always justify the means, and when taken out of the context of World War II and everything else that was going on at the time, and just looked at as one event, then no one can argue that it wasn't wrong in and of itself.
Also, one of the most disgusting things about it is that the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were pretty much just guinea pigs for the people at the Manhattan Project. And in a way, they had to be, because how else were those guys supposed to figure out what these things could actually do. There was no other was around it, but still...really? There are few things more horrible than doing such a thing.
And while we're talking about the effects, it was kind of inconvenient that the immediate effects of the bomb weren't enough for Japan to surrender, so they refused and got a second bomb dropped on them so quickly. And I know that it would have been impossible for this to happen, but if there had been a way for the Japanese to wait and see all the damage that the nuke did in the first month, then maybe they would have realized it was enough and Nagasaki could have been saved, at least. But instead, Japan got nuked twice, and then they had to surrender, and then the effects really started sinking in.
Similarly, another thing that annoys me about the bombings was that the US was so perfectly manipulative and made sure the Japanese were perfectly caught off-guard so that they could kill as many people as possible. It was the morning of a work day, so there were lots of people around, and no one was hiding in bomb shelters because they correctly thought that their city was safe from being firebombed. And they literally didn't know what hit them or how bad it was going to be. All those things were really the reason that the mission went so perfectly, but at the same time, it's just so unfair!
Finally, while this may not be as relevant a point, I hate the fact that the pilot who dropped the first bomb on Japan, Paul Tibbets, was so obnoxiously patriotic. He was cocky, too; he thought he could do everything, and all he felt during the whole mission was excitement and relief that the mission was perfect. As far as he was concerned, he did what he was told to do, and he felt he should be condemned or that. As for the people on the ground, well, that way "their tough luck for being there."
Japan was about to throw in the towel. The only reason why we bombed them was because president Truman wanted to see just how much damage these bombs could do.
Even if you think it was justified somehow, there's simply no way to see such destructive bombing as a "good thing"...
I do agree that it was Americas best option, only because the high casualty rates of Okinawa and Iwo jima showed them how many people will die in a D-DAY style invasion. But considering that Nagasaki was a mistake, the original target was a military fortress, and the misfire cost them thousands more then twice the amount of pearl harbor
After the bombings an estimated 60000 people to 70000 people went missing. As well as this, America had a third bomb lined up, but Japan surrendered.
Such a heartless decision is not something that can ever be looked at as a good thing. Just because it may have taken a while longer for anything to happen does not mean that they would not have done. The combined forces against them were too powerful and for them to make such a heartless decision goes against all morals. Thousands of innocent people died. Even worse, a third bomber was lined up to take thousands more innocent lives, and would have done so, too, if Japan had not done the humane thing by deciding on peace.
And what do you think would've happened if they were not bombed? Those bombs ended the war. If they had not been used, the war would've gone on longer. But then again, perhaps things would be better if it had gone on longer. No way to currently find out.
And those bombs were an example to everyone - something to learn and avoid if possible and it is always possible to avoid them, assuming people have enough intelligence to not even start a pointless war in the first place.
Some hard decisions are necessary.
The only reason why Japan surrendered was because the alternative was obliteration. There was no humane, nor right, nor wrong, no morals, etc., there was only the thought of survival on Japan's side. If someone threatens to kill you at the cost of some pointless emotional/mental obsession would you give that up or keep on going and die as a result? Survival should in most cases straighten things out.
If they had not used atomic/nuclear bombs someone else would've. Russia for example, you think that would have been better?
"And what do you think would've happened if they were not bombed? Those bombs ended the war. If they had not been used, the war would've gone on longer."
This is a strong American delusion which is mainly used to justify the nuking, Japan was planning to surrender anyway, if America didn't think Japan was going to surrender why did they drop two nuclear bombs?
"And those bombs were an example to everyone - something to learn and avoid if possible and it is always possible to avoid them."
There had already several tests done with the atomic bombs, lessons should have been learnt after the tests instead of killing mainly innocent lives.
"Some hard decisions are necessary"
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't necessary.
"If they had not used atomic/nuclear bombs someone else would've. Russia for example, you think that would have been better?"
At least Russia would have had the balls to admit what they did was wrong.
This is a strong American delusion which is mainly used to justify the nuking,
Wouldn't I have to be American to have American delusions? And I'm not one, neither do I have any delusions, unlike you.
Considering that the nuking prevented further pointless bloodshed many times worse than the nuking itself was then yes, it does justify it.
Or would you rather like to argue over the countless deaths that happened because the nuking never occurred and wish it did to save so many on the account of much fewer?
Japan was planning to surrender anyway, if America didn't think Japan was going to surrender why did they drop two nuclear bombs?
So stupid... If someone nuked your home twice, would you still be inclined to keep on fighting and thus face even more nukes?
The only real reason Japan surrendered was because they were nuked. And the nukes also ended the war. They might have thought about surrendering before, they might have not, but the nukes decided it.
There had already several tests done with the atomic bombs, lessons should have been learnt after the tests instead of killing mainly innocent lives.
You do understand that sometimes drastic measures must be employed to get something done, especially to end or prevent something even worse?
If two or more countries with nuclear weapons were in a war against each other what do you think would be left of Earth? A real example of nuclear power, on a small scale, was necessary if you ask me. No one wants their own people vaporized and radiated to death.
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't necessary.
Yes it was necessary. It gave a real example of how things could go if nuclear weapons were to be actively used against enemies. The whole planet would be destroyed. Destroying the whole planet with nuclear weapons is extremely easy.
At least Russia would have had the balls to admit what they did was wrong.
And you know Russia that well how exactly? I live right next to Russia, you have no idea what they are like. If they were allowed to rule the planet, humanity would plunge back into stone age (not literally but it would be extremely bad).
So you knew, Russia is so many times worse than US.
"Wouldn't I have to be American to have American delusions? And I'm not one, neither do I have any delusions, unlike you."
I just stated that it was a typical American delusion, if you've decided to believe it as well I can't stop you.
"Considering that the nuking prevented further pointless bloodshed many times worse than the nuking itself was then yes, it does justify it."
If it was pointless bloodshed why didn't America just stop attacking Japan?
"Or would you rather like to argue over the countless deaths that happened because the nuking never occurred and wish it did to save so many on the account of much fewer?"
There wouldn't have been countless other deaths, WWII was already ending by the time America dropped the nukes, Nazi Germany had already been defeated, Fascist Italy had been defeated and the Japanese Empire was already being conquered.
"So stupid... If someone nuked your home twice, would you still be inclined to keep on fighting and thus face even more nukes?"
If someone nuked my home once I would have stopped, sending in another nuke was completely unnecessary.
"The only real reason Japan surrendered was because they were nuked. And the nukes also ended the war. They might have thought about surrendering before, they might have not, but the nukes decided it."
It was not the only reason. Japan was under military dictatorship, their Government had no control over the aggressive actions taken by the military. How is it justifiable to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians which had no participation in the war?
Using the same logic, the Americans should have nuked Estonia to stop the expansion of the USSR.
"You do understand that sometimes drastic measures must be employed to get something done, especially to end or prevent something even worse?"
And these drastic measures involved eliminating the populations of two cities to save the Allies having to wait another month of war for the Japanese to surrender?
"If two or more countries with nuclear weapons were in a war against each other what do you think would be left of Earth? A real example of nuclear power, on a small scale, was necessary if you ask me. No one wants their own people vaporized and radiated to death."
It was not an example on a "small scale" those example were already shown in the tests previously done. Even if you count the elimination of two cities as "small scale" examples only one bombing would have been necessary to show off the power of a nuke.
"Yes it was necessary. It gave a real example of how things could go if nuclear weapons were to be actively used against enemies. The whole planet would be destroyed. Destroying the whole planet with nuclear weapons is extremely easy."
Then why did the USA invent the thing in the first place?
"And you know Russia that well how exactly? I live right next to Russia, you have no idea what they are like. If they were allowed to rule the planet, humanity would plunge back into stone age (not literally but it would be extremely bad).
So you knew, Russia is so many times worse than US."
Yes, but Russia owns up to it's bad reputation. U.S.A on the other hand doesn't.
I just stated that it was a typical American delusion, if you've decided to believe it as well I can't stop you.
You clearly don't know what delusion means. Logic, facts, and reason are not delusions, just so you knew.
If it was pointless bloodshed why didn't America just stop attacking Japan?'
As I said, it ended further bloodshed. It ended the war. How hard can that be to understand?
There wouldn't have been countless other deaths, WWII was already ending by the time America dropped the nukes, Nazi Germany had already been defeated, Fascist Italy had been defeated and the Japanese Empire was already being conquered.
"Was ending" does not mean it would definitely end.
Russia developed their own nuclear weapons and they are a big threat even presently, as they like to keep reminding by attacking smaller countries bordering them.
USA set an example for everyone of the power of nuclear weapons. If another country like Russia had decided to use their own then they would've been considered enemies by most countries, as Russia already did not have a very good reputation.
If someone nuked my home once I would have stopped, sending in another nuke was completely unnecessary.
Now you are saying that one nuke was necessary? But you said they were both unnecessary. Which one then?
It was not the only reason. Japan was under military dictatorship, their Government had no control over the aggressive actions taken by the military. How is it justifiable to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians which had no participation in the war?
Exactly, the military was in control. Why would they want to surrender if warring is what they like, what is their purpose?
As I've said before, hard decisions are sometimes necessary. By bombing those cities they demonstrated their highly superior power at that time - a power not to be reckoned with.
Using the same logic, the Americans should have nuked Estonia to stop the expansion of the USSR.
The same logic? So stupid... it's not the same.
The cities bombed were part of Japan. Estonia was not part of Russia. To stop the expansion you nuke the country trying to expand, not the country they are trying to expand to, to send them a clear message.
And these drastic measures involved eliminating the populations of two cities to save the Allies having to wait another month of war for the Japanese to surrender?
Japanese surrendering does not mean the war itself would end. In a wartime, another month or two is a very long time, a lot can happen, a lot can be destroyed and killed.
It was not an example on a "small scale" those example were already shown in the tests previously done. Even if you count the elimination of two cities as "small scale" examples only one bombing would have been necessary to show off the power of a nuke.
It was an example on a small scale, when talking about nuclear weapons. Large scale would be the whole country.
Destroying one is one thing but two closes the deal. With the second, and the third ready, they showed that they could keep on going. There was no point fighting death, they'd lose.
Tests are not a real example. An example is the actual thing.
Then why did the USA invent the thing in the first place?
Must have small brainpower to even ask this. For power, to keep enemies at bay. For science, I'm sure you've heard of nuclear plants.
If USA had not invented, someone else would have anyway. You should be rather thankful it was them, not someone else, and that they saw how easily the planet could be reduced to dust.
Yes, but Russia owns up to it's bad reputation. U.S.A on the other hand doesn't.
???
You are justifying Russia's idiocy by saying that USA is not that bad? Or are you comparing two completely different reputations? Both of those countries are different, comparing them is pointless. They both live up to their reputation because their reputations are different. Reputation comes from actions, that also means reputation can easily change.
Not living up to reputation can only occur if there was a sudden change, and the new "reputation" has not yet been put in place. USA has been a mess for quite a while.
"You clearly don't know what delusion means. Logic, facts, and reason are not delusions, just so you knew."
Here we go, more prejudice. You really know how to ruin a debate.
"As I said, it ended further bloodshed. It ended the war. How hard can that be to understand?"
The war was ending American soldiers were advancing ionto Japan anyway. How hard can that be to understand?
"Was ending" does not mean it would definitely end."
WWII was ending, Japan's allies had been removed. Japan was no longer a threat anyway.
"USA set an example for everyone of the power of nuclear weapons. If another country like Russia had decided to use their own then they would've been considered enemies by most countries, as Russia already did not have a very good reputation."
Oh, and USA had a "good" reputation then? The only reason you regard America so highly is because you've watched a lot of their media.
"Now you are saying that one nuke was necessary? But you said they were both unnecessary. Which one then?"
That's irrelevant, using both the nukes was unnecessary. Also I didn't say that 1 nuke was necessary, I said using two nukes was unecessary.
"Exactly, the military was in control. Why would they want to surrender if warring is what they like, what is their purpose?"
They didn't want war, they wanted an empire. There empire was being reconquered by the British and Americans. If we had just continued on the same path then Japan would have surrendered.
"As I've said before, hard decisions are sometimes necessary. By bombing those cities they demonstrated their highly superior power at that time - a power not to be reckoned with."
Showing off power does not justify killing hundreds of thousands of people.
"The same logic? So stupid... it's not the same."
I know your logic is stupid.
"The cities bombed were part of Japan. Estonia was not part of Russia. To stop the expansion you nuke the country trying to expand, not the country they are trying to expand to, to send them a clear message."
Estonia under the U.S.S.R would have provided Russia with many resources and soldiers, it would have made sense to nuke them. And if you wanted to stop Japan expanding you would nuke their military bases, not their towns.
"It was an example on a small scale, when talking about nuclear weapons. Large scale would be the whole country.Destroying one is one thing but two closes the deal. With the second, and the third ready, they showed that they could keep on going. There was no point fighting death, they'd lose."
Destroying twice only shows that they have a lust for power and a sadistic taste for murder.
"Tests are not a real example. An example is the actual thing."
The only difference between the tests and the real events was the death count.
"Must have small brainpower to even ask this. For power, to keep enemies at bay. For science, I'm sure you've heard of nuclear plants."
They did not invent the missile with the intention of science or nuclear power, they wanted something that would kill a lot of people in a small amount of time.
"If USA had not invented, someone else would have anyway. You should be rather thankful it was them, not someone else, and that they saw how easily the planet could be reduced to dust."
This is a ridiculous justification that could only have been seen through hindsight. "The United States nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki to show how bad modern warfare is and how we should aim for world peace", they bombed Japan because they wanted to kill civilians, to have a measure of their power and to use the deadly weapon they just invented.
How exactly are logic, facts, and reason ruining a debate?
The war was ending American soldiers were advancing ionto Japan anyway. How hard can that be to understand?
Really, come out of your little box of stupidity. Japan could have defeated them, they had the potential. Nukes put a solid end to all of it.
WWII was ending, Japan's allies had been removed. Japan was no longer a threat anyway.
Don't be so sure. How can you call a valid military strength "no longer a threat"? It definitely wasn't a threat after the nukes.
Oh, and USA had a "good" reputation then? The only reason you regard America so highly is because you've watched a lot of their media.
And more your idiotic prejudice. Britain is not everything. How can fighting the "bad guys" be considered disreputable?
That's irrelevant, using both the nukes was unnecessary. Also I didn't say that 1 nuke was necessary, I said using two nukes was unecessary.
Saying using two nukes was unnecessary while saying one would have been enough is essentially saying that one was necessary. Either way, you cannot know if it was unnecessary or not, since things didn't go that way. But the fact is that after those nukes attacks on other countries stopped, no one wanted to be noticed by USA for obvious reasons.
They didn't want war, they wanted an empire. There empire was being reconquered by the British and Americans. If we had just continued on the same path then Japan would have surrendered.
On the contrary. If an empire was what they wanted then they would have kept going, they would not have surrendered. Perhaps they would have "surrendered" as a tactical decision, that means lying to get their way.
Showing off power does not justify killing hundreds of thousands of people.
As I've said before, if it prevents even more death then it is justified. As you keep reminding how many died.
I know your logic is stupid.
And more of your delusions.
Estonia under the U.S.S.R would have provided Russia with many resources and soldiers, it would have made sense to nuke them.
And topping your stupidity... nice one.
Have you any idea how many Estonians there were, there currently are? If you knew you would not have said something that stupid.
Have you any idea how big Estonia is? You clearly don't.
If Japan's goal was to create an empire then the lands they intended to expand to should've been nuked, not two of Japan's cities.
Honestly, you are very stupid. You contradict yourself and fail to notice it.
And if you wanted to stop Japan expanding you would nuke their military bases, not their towns.
So with Russia expanding you nuke Estonia, not Russia's military bases. Okay, I'll go with that stupidity. Then why not attack the land Japan wanted to expand to?
You are so biased, and you develop bias as you go. That's just so pathetic.
Destroying twice only shows that they have a lust for power and a sadistic taste for murder.
And more prejudice, thanks!
The only difference between the tests and the real events was the death count.
That's what an example means... tests are (usually) without casualties, or with just some few ones.
Humanity had to see the power behind nuclear weapons, so they wouldn't begin abusing it. Everyone saw it, everyone learned from it.
They did not invent the missile with the intention of science or nuclear power, they wanted something that would kill a lot of people in a small amount of time.
And what did that do? There hasn't been a world war since! Because the next world war will include nuclear weapons! Or worse. There are no rules in a war, there is only one purpose - defeating the enemy, and by any means necessary if it should go that far.
This is a ridiculous justification that could only have been seen through hindsight.
It's not ridiculous, unless you're highly prejudiced.
they bombed Japan because they wanted to kill civilians, to have a measure of their power and to use the deadly weapon they just invented.
They didn't nuke them because they wanted to kill civilians. As I have said, sometimes hard decisions are necessary.
Scientists invented that weapon, not the ones leading the country. The inventers definitely did not want to use it. The leaders wanted to use it, and once used, they saw what could be done with it, and they stopped. And it was the right decision, there was a new weapon on the table and the same technology also being developed by Russians.
"And what do you think would happen if they were not bombed?"
I think that the world would have been a safer, nicer place. If they had not been bombed the war may have gone on a little longer, but I think that we would have won anyway.
You cannot say, surely, that shortening a war by a few months or years, maybe, justifies killing 70000 innocent people instantly.
"Those bombs ended the war"
They ended the war, but it would've ended anyway.
The fact is that America, for example, has a very strong military force, and without the bombs the still, with allied forces, could have won the war.
Ending the war slightly earlier does not justify taking thousands of innocent lives.
"Things would have been better if it had gone on longer"
Of course it would.
America took thousands of innocent lives on those days and they were prepared to take more just because they were annoyed that their harbour had been attacked, or something. If you think that the war would have been better after those attacks, then you have a severe problem.
"Those bombs were an example to everyone"
Yes, they ruined the reputation of America
Now, whenever people associate things like 'America' and 'war', or 'America' and 'Japan' or 'America' and 'intelligence', people think of how stupid the Americans were that day. People still suffer from the radiation problems from that today and they will do for a while longer because of the immorality military leaders in America shows.
"If they had not used atomic/nuclear bombs someone else would've"
I think that the world would have been a safer, nicer place.
I highly doubt that.
You cannot say, surely, that shortening a war by a few months or years, maybe, justifies killing 70000 innocent people instantly.
I understand that in your mind it is better if less innocents died than more. If the war had gone on longer there would've been far more innocent deaths. It doesn't matter if they were killed instantly or over several years period, the outcome is exactly the same - they are dead.
They ended the war, but it would've ended anyway.
Yes, it would've, but as you keep mentioning the deaths of innocents then how can you say that bombing, in the long run, was bad? If it prevented further pointless killing? If it prevented deaths of far more than just 70000 innocents?
The fact is that America, for example, has a very strong military force, and without the bombs the still, with allied forces, could have won the war.
Don't be so sure about that. If you are smart enough you could kill an army of 100 000 with 10 000. Have you heard about the Japanese (Chinese, other people in those parts) having a higher average intelligence?
Ending the war slightly earlier does not justify taking thousands of innocent lives.
Even if the alternative was the death of far more innocents?
Of course it would.
I said, "But then again, perhaps things would be better if it had gone on longer. No way to currently find out."
I did not say they would be, I said they could. Could does not mean they would. Can't you understand your own native language?
Saying with certainty that something would be this way or that, while there is no way to find out, is the same as saying religions are the truth, that God exists. It's the same stupid.
America took thousands of innocent lives on those days and they were prepared to take more just because they were annoyed that their harbour had been attacked, or something.
I don't think you know what a war means, or is about... If you are an aggressor it is about conquering your target. If you are a defender then it is about preventing to be conquered.
They attacked Japan that way because they were afraid that they might defeat USA. It's that simple. You don't let highly potential threats just be if you can disable them easily. If they had fought them with regular means then they could have lost.
You don't seem to grasp how things work.
If you think that the war would have been better after those attacks, then you have a severe problem.
The war? What the f... Don't you mean the world, humanity? Things could currently be better, but as I said there is no way to find out.
And you have a severe problem understanding, apparently, almost everything. If you cannot grasp the different possible truths behind wars and actions, then just stay shut. As I said, harsh decisions are sometimes necessary. If you cannot understand that then you have severe problems.
Yes, they ruined the reputation of America
No, they didn't.
Now, whenever people associate things like 'America' and 'war', or 'America' and 'Japan' or 'America' and 'intelligence', people think of how stupid the Americans were that day.
No, they don't.
I don't, people where I live don't. I haven't heard anyone ever before mention USA and then immediately say something about those two bombs.
People still suffer from the radiation problems from that today and they will do for a while longer because of the immorality military leaders in America shows.
Have you any idea what radiation does? If those people keep having children they will never recover. If they did survive then over a very long period evolution could fix those problems, unless they begin genetically altering people.
Immorality? Made up by humans. Could easily be different from current one. If you think making the right decision is immoral then you have severe problems.
You do what is necessary, assuming you know what is right.
Whether someone would have or not is irrelevant.
It is not irrelevant. If Russia had used them you think they would've been satisfied by just two? Think again.
"I understand that in your mind it is better if less innocents died than more. If the war had gone on longer there would've been far more innocent deaths. It doesn't matter if they were killed instantly or over several years period, the outcome is exactly the same - they are dead."
If the war had gone on it wouldn't have been civilian lives that were killed, it would have been soldiers who knew what they were risking in warfare. And a lot less lives would have been lost if America hadn't used the nukes.
"Yes, it would've, but as you keep mentioning the deaths of innocents then how can you say that bombing, in the long run, was bad? If it prevented further pointless killing? If it prevented deaths of far more than just 70000 innocents?"
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was pointless killing, not only did it kill thousands of people instantly but the radiation caused death and deformities generations later.
"Don't be so sure about that. If you are smart enough you could kill an army of 100 000 with 10 000. Have you heard about the Japanese (Chinese, other people in those parts) having a higher average intelligence?"
The idea that Asian people are smarter is mainly stereotype (though it wouldn't surprise me if it were true) and the pulling of a trigger or a dropping of a bomb doesn't require much intelligence.
"
I don't think you know what a war means, or is about... If you are an aggressor it is about conquering your target. If you are a defender then it is about preventing to be conquered.
They attacked Japan that way because they were afraid that they might defeat USA. It's that simple. You don't let highly potential threats just be if you can disable them easily. If they had fought them with regular means then they could have lost."
Apart from the fact that America was the defender, it was Japan that launched the first military assault. Even if you say that USA was the aggressor then it still makes the nukes completely unjustifiable, they were scared of the Japanese threat and so destoryed their cities? Most Americans justify the bombing as self-defence from Japanese aggression.
"It is not irrelevant. If Russia had used them you think they would've been satisfied by just two? Think again."
Russia's different they were under dictatorship as well, it sickens me how America can use such weapons and still have the audacity to call themselves "the land of the free".
And who f are you exactly? Just a troll I presume. And someone's alternative account too? Seems so.
If you got no brains then... wait, if you got no brains then this is exactly what you are inclined toward. (by having no brains I mean you being a total idiot)
If the war had gone on it wouldn't have been civilian lives that were killed, it would have been soldiers who knew what they were risking in warfare.
Truth is that most soldiers are also innocent, because they are brainwashed into it. They are simply tools, or rather toys.
And a lot less lives would have been lost if America hadn't used the nukes.
How can you know with such certainty? You can't, neither can I. But it is on the safe side to assume there would have been far more deaths if it had prolonged. It might have ended anyway, but the nukes put a vivid end to all of it. Everyone saw what a war can lead to.
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was pointless killing, not only did it kill thousands of people instantly but the radiation caused death and deformities generations later.
All wars are pointless killing. The only ones who gain something are the ones in leading positions. Assuming they are also one the winning side... It's just a game, and a very stupid one at that.
The idea that Asian people are smarter is mainly stereotype (though it wouldn't surprise me if it were true) and the pulling of a trigger or a dropping of a bomb doesn't require much intelligence.
But the potential of producing better tactics and better means of eliminating the enemy, and all that faster than others, is higher. Weren't there also more Japanese back then than there were Americans?
Even if you say that USA was the aggressor then it still makes the nukes completely unjustifiable,
I never said the US was the aggressor.
The nukes prevented all further assaults with absolute certainty. From all enemies, not just Japan.
Most Americans justify the bombing as self-defence from Japanese aggression.
And if it is true?
Russia's different they were under dictatorship as well, it sickens me how America can use such weapons and still have the audacity to call themselves "the land of the free".'
Russia doesn't lie when messing everything up, they shove right into your face, and they seem to be proud of it, or just fail to notice their own stupidity. America lies and tends to hide the truth, and unfortunately a lot of people believe all of it. Still, USA is more intelligent than Russia when it comes to governing.
"Truth is that most soldiers are also innocent, because they are brainwashed into it. They are simply tools, or rather toys."
Civilians are more innocent that soldiers, they are defenceless whereas soldiers exist to fiight and kill. It is a cowardly act to kill a civilian instead of killing soldiers.
"How can you know with such certainty? You can't, neither can I. But it is on the safe side to assume there would have been far more deaths if it had prolonged. It might have ended anyway, but the nukes put a vivid end to all of it. Everyone saw what a war can lead to."
No, everyone saw what America could do. It was not a show of humanity's destruction but a show of America's power.
"All wars are pointless killing. The only ones who gain something are the ones in leading positions. Assuming they are also one the winning side... It's just a game, and a very stupid one at that."
Life is a game.
"But the potential of producing better tactics and better means of eliminating the enemy, and all that faster than others, is higher. Weren't there also more Japanese back then than there were Americans?"
No, there wasn't more Japanese than Americans. Even if there were the Allied forces of America and the British Empire easily outnumber Japan.
"I never said the US was the aggressor."
Notice how I said "Even if you say that USA was the aggressor..."
"The nukes prevented all further assaults with absolute certainty. From all enemies, not just Japan."
From all of America's enemies. And anyway, who else but Japan would have continued fighting at that stage of WW2?
Civilians are more innocent that soldiers, they are defenceless whereas soldiers exist to fiight and kill.
So now you start putting them to a list where the first one is the least innocent? Or the opposite?
Soldiers do not exist to fight and kill, they were trained, taught, and brainwashed to be killers, and they all were innocent civilians. Messing their minds up makes them different how exactly?
Are serial killers, rapists, murderers more innocent? They are considered as civilians, are they not? And how can you possibly know what everyone is like?
Soldiers are innocent, if anything they are guilty of being stupid and susceptible to idiocy coming from their leaders, all the way up to (mostly) one single person. And that one person is the one who is the most guilty. The soldiers just do what that person wants, the soldiers are simply tools to be used, they have no mind of their own.
It is a cowardly act to kill a civilian instead of killing soldiers.
Makes no difference, they're both human.
No, everyone saw what America could do.
Not just America, but anyone with that kind of power. Russia wasn't that far behind when it came to nuclear power. If they would've been first to develop it they would've used it to make themselves dominant.
It was not a show of humanity's destruction but a show of America's power.
If they hadn't shown their power, someone else would have (Russia). It showed everyone what could happen and they all were afraid of it and so they just stopped the war before being too late.
And it was also a show of humanity's destruction, as it was done by humans.
Life is a game.
If you mean the same life that all organisms here have then no, it is not a game. If you mean our everyday interactions with each other then that is not entirely a game, just a part of it.
From all of America's enemies. And anyway, who else but Japan would have continued fighting at that stage of WW2?
How many Germans were there? Even less than Japanese, and they did rather well even though they lost. If the leader would've been smarter with tactics they could have won. Japan could have won also if there were no nukes. The nukes put a solid end to it, it scared everyone, no further activity from anyone.
My argument was logical, I thought it through well, and I provided evidence for why the bombings were not morally suitable. Yet, for some bizarre reason (maybe you just don't like me?), you go on to say nothing apart from 'idiot'.
How do you even know how to get past the 50-character limit? You have 14 points, so how do you know how do to things like that?
It wasn't a stupid, thoughtless, decision. The bomb was only used because if it was not the war would have dragged on for much longer and Japan was prepared to keep fighting and even started a civilian army and were prepared to fight a guerilla war in the mainland of Japan and other islands. Yes the bomb killed many people, but having the war drag on for longer would have result in much more deaths on both sides including civilians who were ready to for the emperor.
