• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hiroshima marks 70 years since atomic bomb

Jack Hays said:
Your unwillingness to read books explains the shallowness of your views.

"Hell To Pay is a comprehensive and compelling examination of the myriad complex issues that comprised the strategic plans for the American invasion of Japan.
Click to expand...
FFS Jack, I already read the ADVERTISEMENT for the book, that again is not what I asked for.
 
Bodhisattva said:
It was 100% justifiable... 100%
Click to expand...
Ray410 said:
With no concern whatsoever for millions more Americans dying?
Click to expand...
I disagree from a moral stand point. It is not justifiable to drop an atomic bomb on a whole population made up of civilians....

cpgrad08 said:
Another America is the devil thread by DemSocialist.
Click to expand...
Disagreeing with a countries action (be it your own or another country), doest not make one "anti-American", or make one implingly hold the opinion of "America is the 'devil'"....


The bombings were necessary and saved millions lives that would have been lost in a invasion of Japan. Japan was not ready to surrender as seen after the first bombing and even after the second bombing there was a coup by the Japanese military to overthrow the Emperor and prevent him from releasing his surrender speech.
Click to expand...

jet57 said:
I'm sure that you value your opinion however I'm also sure that you have a firm grasp on THAT particular history and the complications of that time period. In all research and historical documentation, the Japanese empire sealed their own fate. What was left for us to do, invade with the probable loss of one million lives for the allies? Did Hiroshima change humanity forever? Yes, WWII changed humanity forever as well, so what do we do about that complication? We live with it, that's what. It was just a matter of time anyway because if we run THAT period research out to it's logical conclusion, an A bomb was just in the cards, that's all there is to it. We know this because the latest research of Fatman and Little Boy is almost conclusive that Truman had much less to do with the decision than we originally thought; the momentum was so strong and so far over the top by then that the bomb was going to be dropped anyway, so Truma really just rubber stamped a decision that the war department had made. It was a horrible thing: the Holocaust was a horrible thing, but we live in what is sometimes just a horrible world.
Click to expand...




Jack Hays said:
Thank God for Truman's courage to drop the bombs. The decision reflected a military necessity and a moral imperative. The Japanese sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind.
Click to expand...

This simply isnt true. Historical evidence proves otherwise. There is a great amount of historical evidence that prove Japan was going to surrender. There is plenty of historical evidence that Japan was willing and ready to surrender. Not only without the bomb, but without further conventional fighting. Dropping the bomb was then not necessary.. The only thing the dropping of the atomic bomb really accomplished politically and militarily was making the terms of surrender completely controlled by the USA's influence as opposed to Russia and Japan having more/much input. I do not value American hegemony over innocent lives.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
I disagree from a moral stand point. It is not justifiable to drop an atomic bomb on a whole population made up of civilians....
Click to expand...

I agree with that but that was a total war and the "rules" were that there were no rules and that is a standard that the Japanese themselves started and maintained...
 
Bodhisattva said:
I agree with that but that was a total war and the "rules" were that there were no rules and that is a standard that the Japanese themselves started and maintained...
Click to expand...

"The rules" at the time of an action, such as this, does not make it justifiable. Lots of crimes happened under "rules" that allowed them to happen (and continue to happen). Certainly does not make it justified. Salvery, torture, mass murder/genocide, censorship, brutality, etc.
 
Both bombs were justified, if for no other reason than they completely shattered the will of the Japanese people to continue fighting. I hope their remembrance ceremonies focus on their own actions as a nation that brought about all that destruction.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
"The rules" at the time of an action, such as this, does not make it justifiable. Lots of crimes happened under "rules" that allowed them to happen (and continue to happen). Certainly does not make it justified. Salvery, torture, mass murder/genocide, censorship, brutality, etc.
Click to expand...

Dropping the nukes was every bit as justified as the mass bombings of 64 other Japanese cities and all over Germany as well. It wasn't "moral" but nothing about war is.

So what? It ended the war. Mission accomplished.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Dropping the nukes was every bit as justified as the mass bombings of 64 other Japanese cities and all over Germany as well. It wasn't "moral" but nothing about war is.

So what? It ended the war. Mission accomplished.
Click to expand...

If we dropped a nuke on Fallujah because of their "fierce resistance" would not make that action justified.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
If we dropped a nuke on Fallujah because of their "fierce resistance" would not make that action justified.
Click to expand...

Not even remotely analogous... would you like to try again although I have to say that nothing is analogous to WWII.
 
leoborn said:
Terrible way to teach a lesson, but maybe it was worth it in the long run if it works. So why does everyone now want nuclear weapons if no one is going to use them?
Click to expand...

War is terrible.

As for your question, think of it as an old fashioned Mexican standoff. The presence of these weapons do more good than harm and deter any real wars from sparking.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
LOL...oh, so posting the advertisement....after you linked to it....after I asked for more than just the advertisement for the book.....is you being "serious".

You are correct Dr. Ryan, I'm not "serious" like that. That is more like "Very Serious People".
Click to expand...

There are a number of articles about Giangreco's work but those presuppose familiarity with the work itself. If you are not willing to pay the price of actually learning the material then no, you're not serious. This is not just some game of "find the link." This is a matter of research and scholarship. Without respecting that, you really can't enter the discussion.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
This simply isnt true. Historical evidence proves otherwise. There is a great amount of historical evidence that prove Japan was going to surrender. There is plenty of historical evidence that Japan was willing and ready to surrender. Not only without the bomb, but without further conventional fighting. Dropping the bomb was then not necessary.. The only thing the dropping of the atomic bomb really accomplished politically and militarily was making the terms of surrender completely controlled by the USA's influence as opposed to Russia and Japan having more/much input. I do not value American hegemony over innocent lives.
Click to expand...

You are obviously among those unfamiliar with the work of D.M. Giangreco, Hell to Pay: Operation DOWNFALL and the Invasion of Japan. It invalidates virtually every claim in your post. It also offers startling new insights based on previously unavailable or unknown sources. Among those was the real fear by U.S. planners that the cost of an invasion would be so high it would fail. And on the Japanese side a very real resolve to fight on to the end.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
This simply isnt true. Historical evidence proves otherwise. There is a great amount of historical evidence that prove Japan was going to surrender. There is plenty of historical evidence that Japan was willing and ready to surrender. Not only without the bomb, but without further conventional fighting. Dropping the bomb was then not necessary.. The only thing the dropping of the atomic bomb really accomplished politically and militarily was making the terms of surrender completely controlled by the USA's influence as opposed to Russia and Japan having more/much input. I do not value American hegemony over innocent lives.
Click to expand...

Not even close to surrendering as a nation. Yes, some proposals were being considered but the invasion looked to be an utter nightmare. Millions of soldiers and up to 10,000 aircraft for kamikazee's

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Ground_threat

History Channel did a big show on how ill-prepared US planners were and how completely shocked they were when they thought the initial invasion would be defended by 4 divisions only to find out they acually had 13 divisions prepared for initial defense with a lot more for the other islands should we succeed.

The nukes were 100% the right decision.
 
Jack Hays said:
You are obviously among those unfamiliar with the work of D.M. Giangreco, Hell to Pay: Operation DOWNFALL and the Invasion of Japan. It invalidates virtually every claim in your post. It also offers startling new insights based on previously unavailable or unknown sources. Among those was the real fear by U.S. planners that the cost of an invasion would be so high it would fail. And on the Japanese side a very real resolve to fight on to the end.
Click to expand...

You are obviously unfamiliar of Professor of History and Director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University Peter Kuznick's works.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Not even close to surrendering as a nation. Yes, some proposals were being considered but the invasion looked to be an utter nightmare. Millions of soldiers and up to 10,000 aircraft for kamikazee's

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Ground_threat

History Channel did a big show on how ill-prepared US planners were and how completely shocked they were when they thought the initial invasion would be defended by 4 divisions only to find out they acually had 13 divisions prepared for initial defense with a lot more for the other islands should we succeed.

The nukes were 100% the right decision.
Click to expand...

So you are saying we werent at war with a nation state but at war with a whole nation of people regardless of their civilian status or not? That justifies bombing a civilian population with an atomic weapon not once but twice!? :shock:
 
TheDemSocialist said:
I disagree from a moral stand point. It is not justifiable to drop an atomic bomb on a whole population made up of civilians....


Disagreeing with a countries action (be it your own or another country), doest not make one "anti-American", or make one implingly hold the opinion of "America is the 'devil'"....











This simply isnt true. Historical evidence proves otherwise. There is a great amount of historical evidence that prove Japan was going to surrender. There is plenty of historical evidence that Japan was willing and ready to surrender. Not only without the bomb, but without further conventional fighting. Dropping the bomb was then not necessary.. The only thing the dropping of the atomic bomb really accomplished politically and militarily was making the terms of surrender completely controlled by the USA's influence as opposed to Russia and Japan having more/much input. I do not value American hegemony over innocent lives.
Click to expand...

I'm a good student of the war, and Japan wanted conditions. Japan had said that they would not surrender unless [i[]it was their way[/i]. Be sure; I don;t value American hegemony either, but it's not about that: it's about the accuracy of the dropping of the bomb: the bombings of Dresden killed more people. It has been estimated that from 50 to 100,000 died, so the numbers aren't the issue. The issue is WHY...

Enough was enough. The Japanese were a horribly brutal enemy. What the did in China and Manchuria etc made the six million Jews like "collateral damage". The US had had it, as had everyone else, so again, aside from outright invasion at a loss of up to one million allied personnel, and who knows how many Japanese... what were the options? Give in to Japan's insistence in "conditions for surrender", after what we'd all been through!?!

Nope, we did the right thing at the time.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
So you are saying we werent at war with a nation state but at war with a whole nation of people regardless of their civilian status or not? That justifies bombing a civilian population with an atomic weapon not once but twice!? :shock:
Click to expand...

Red Herring detected!

Red Herring detected!

Red Herring detected!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom