{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Bearbeitet von OhtheHugeManity:
1/30/2016 11:56:58 PM
222
The Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Your Opinion
Do you approve or disaprove to Atomic Bombings that took place?
Whoops. Opinion*
Edit 1:
So I was researching the bombings which lead to this poll and I'm seeing a few misconceptions
Mainly in the amount of civilians killed. The deathtoll is estimated at around 80-120 thousand with around the same number injured.
As for my opinion. I find it hard to decide
On one hand it lead to Nuclear Energy, and put an end to the war.
On the other hand a lot of civillians were killed. I think maybe it wasn't necessary to drop them on populated cities. Maybe instead start with farmland to threaten Japan. If they continue to attack then bomb a city.
Another downside to me is that now it just takes a few people in the US alone (not to mention other places armed with nukes,) to authorise the launching of nukes capable of levelling the planet.
Edit 2: So I've been researchong nukes some more and came upon some interesting info. Over the 70 or so years from its invention, about 2200 nukes have been tested. 1000 by the USA and almost as many by Russia.
How much money must these countries have used on nukes? Doesn't sound like a very efficient use of cash considering nukes aren't going to be used much or ever, in warfare again.
English
#Offtopic
-
Drop the bombs>large scale land invasion where millions of people on both sides die
-
As a half Japanese myself, I think the bombing was necessary. We had the chance to surrender after the first bomb, but the emperor decided to ignore it. If Truman hadn't drop the bombs, I honestly do believe millions upon millions would have died. Japan is all about honor, so to give up is cowardly and dishonorable. The Japanese military were complete savages and inhumane, but every country has its dark history.
-
2 AntwortenWhat's the worst part about breaking up with a Japanese girlfriend? [spoiler]You have to drop the bomb on her twice[/spoiler]
-
107 AntwortenI'd like to see you do this poll in Japan and see how differently they feel, you know, since they're the ones who were massacred. And for people saying "they deserved it after Pearl Harbor." No. The US government at the time knew PH was coming and allowed it to happen to spark public backing for the US to enter the war. Sure, the Japanese attacked us, but you can blame our own government for it actually being successful.
-
4 AntwortenBearbeitet von Rei: 2/2/2016 5:07:20 AMIf you've seen Grave of the Fireflies... The Japanese civilians didn't really believe in the war anymore, they were starving and worn out. The Japanese rulers though... were pretty dead set on continuing until victory, no matter the cost. We threatened them with dropping them before we actually did. While I think the Japanese would have been starved out eventually, the bombs did end the war earlier than that point, and saved many lives. But is it okay to say that at the cost of so many CIVILIANS? Also, were two bombs necessary? (I haven't done the research, so please educate me on the circumstances if anyone knows) I don't know. We'll never know, but the fact that we now have international laws around these things is a result of it, and good thing.
-
From what I've read, The Rаpe of Nanking was the most despicable thing Ever done by the Japanese.
-
2 AntwortenDidn't Japan start the war?
-
The US government said it was necessary, so obviously it's justified. They always tell the truth
-
As an American where else were we going to test the bomb out? :/
-
First off the use of the nuclear bombs saved an almost incalculable number of american soldier lives. You have to remember these soldiers were at the time fighting through environments that the Japanese soldiers were use to and so had the advantage, especially when using guerrilla tactics as they were. The U.S. would have still won, but it would have cost a lot of money and human lives. Second it could be argued that the use of the nuclear bombs save many Japanese lives as well. The number of civilians killed by two nuclear bombs is actually far less then the number that had been killed by the fire bombing of Japanese villages. At the time many Japanese buildings were made of wood, this meant that when fire bombs were used the cities were decimated, and many died. The nuclear bombs put an end to the fire bombings, thereby saving many lives, this is not even counting the number of Japanese that would be killed in fighting U.S. soldiers. The dropping of the nuclear bombs is also said to have given the Japanese government an out for surrender. To surrender just because there are losing in a conventional way would be extremely dishonourable and unacceptable for the emperor, however surrendering because your enemy has bombs that can wipe out an entire city with one use, and is a weapon you have never before encountered is a different story. It may still be at least somewhat dishonourable, but it is far better then being completely defeated in conventional battle.
-
It's called war.
-
6 AntwortenBearbeitet von Lord Puncake: 2/2/2016 4:15:38 AMFrom our perspective today, it may seem a bit overkill. But think about it from their perspective; from their time. They had no idea what nukes would do. They didn't know if they were going to win. They were going up against the ONLY country to ever attack the US on its own soil in all of American History up to that point. They were scared to death. They did what they had to do to ensure victory. If the US didn't fire the nukes, they would have had to launch a full-on land assault. That would have resulted in MANY more casualties for both sides.
-
1 AntwortenThe estimated deaths for American soldiers would have been around a million if we invaded Japan and civilians would have still died, maybe even more.
-
Bombing Japan the way they did is only justified in some retarded, sick sense. "The ends justify the means" is somewhat true here, but what President Truman failed to realize is that dropping the bombs elsewhere would have resulted in Japan's surrender. Off the coast, wilderness, or elsewhere would have sufficed. A display of power is all that was necessary.
-
I call it what it really was, war crimes. When we dropped those bombs we weren't attacking just Japan, but all of humanity. We propagated the Cold War.
-
Atomic bomb was overkill.
-
And you see the result of the United States being paranoid for decades. Spending billions of dollars to fund the Military but can't feed the poor.
-
Only other option was an invasion of Japan witch could have resulted in more deaths.
-
This was such a long time ago. We're cool w each other now so why does this matter? [spoiler]oh its cause op wanted some attention[/spoiler]
-
Japan knew that the nukes were going to be dropped days beforehand, they did nothing, not our fault. If we had a land invasion instead of nuking the two cities, the death toll was estimated to be around 1million people.
-
I understand why it was done, but I still disapprove. I do think the decision to drop it and the aftermath made people have second thoughts though. You can't go back from that, and it must've been terrifying for everyone who knew about it. What do you do? But that's war
-
1 AntwortenThe Japanese were warned way before that the US had this ability and it would be used against them. They didn't listen so the US did it
-
We did a debate over this a couple years ago The two options were A. Bomb the -blam!- out of Japan B. Go and do a land attack Everyone picked A so my teacher actually picked out the smartest kids in my class (I was in it :) ) and we had to debate against them
-
Wtf are you talking about? We all know the Chickens and Cows dropped the bombs
-
Don't start nothin there won't be nothin
-
26 AntwortenHiroshima, probably necessary. Nagasaki, probably overkill.
