JavaScript is required to use Bungie.net

자유 게시판

자유롭게 대화를 나누어보세요.
작성자: Bigger Masshole 4/14/2015 10:05:27 PM
220

Were the atomic bombs dropped on Japan justified?

Great. This is just asking for trouble... Keep in mind I'm not asking whether the U.S. was a hero or villain, I'm asking whether it was justified or not. Now before you right something out of emotion, keep these things in mind: - The building of the atomic bomb was a response to the discovery that Germany was also developing nuclear weapons. The U.S. probably would've never built one if Albert Einstein didn't tell the U.S. government of Hitler's plan to develop and use. - For those who've never heard of The -blam!- of Nanking, you might want to look it up. The Imperial Japanese Army committed atrocious acts against the people of Nanking, China during a 6 week period being in December of 1937. An estimation of civilians who were killed is in the 200-300 thousands. Most women of most ages were -blam!-, not only by Japanese soldiers, but by sons, brothers, and fathers that were forced to do it by the Japanese. Men, women, and children of all ages were also slaughtered in most brutal of ways. Many suffered torture(too many types to name) before finally being killed. Most Japanese soldiers actually smiled and laughed while committing these atrocities. - Just like Germany, Japan was incredibly racist. They believed that they were the pure Asian race and saw people of non-Japanese descent as inferior (refer to The -blam!- of Nanking). Not only that, but they believed it was them who should own the Pacific, which is part of the reason why they bombed Pearl Harbor on December of 1941. At that point, America needed to act because of the attack on its own turf. - With the fall of the Axis Powers in Europe, the full attention was now turned to the Pacific. Unfortunately, FDR died of a stroke in April of 1945, while the atomic bomb was still in development. Harry Truman took office and was not aware of the Manhattan Project until he entered office. - The Japanese mentality of fighting was that of something never seen before. No surrender, fight until the very end, and suicide if all else fails. These guys were extreme radicals. They fought with an extreme passion for their country and Emperor. - Truman was a devout Christian. He had to make one of the hardest decisions a person could make. But here is some more background on the situation. • The scientists who developed the bomb had different views from one another. Some believed it needed to be dropped, while others thought a monster would become of this. Here is a famous quote by Einstein (a lifelong pacifist) regarding this; "Organized power can be opposed only by organized power. Much as I regret this, there is no other way." • Many generals of the U.S. also debated this. General Eisenhower believed it shouldn't be dropped because it would tarnish America's reputation. General Marshall believed it needed to be dropped because the only way to defeat the Japanese was with an unconditional surrender. When it came down to it, a peace agreement wasn't an option. • There was a plan to drop an atomic bomb near Japan so everyone in Japan could see it. However, this could not be done because if the Japanese knew they had atomic bombs and figured out what cities America would drop them on, then Japan would've moved their operations, factories, and people to different locations while moving in American POWs to be bombed instead. It needed to be a surprise. • There was an estimation of the cost of invading Japan. Now, cost in this instance means lives of human beings, not just money. Hundreds of thousands of lives were thought to be lossed, civilian and soldier alike. America also knew that Japan would prolong the war as long as possible, depleting them of money, resources, and lives. Dropping the atomic bomb was thought to bring a swift surrender, even though it would cost the lives of thousands. The estimation of the dropping of the bombs was in between 30 to 60 thousand. This wasn't the case, but no one could actually knew what the damage would've been. So, it seemed more sensible to drop the bombs. • Put yourself in Truman's shoes for a minute. He was a very humble and kind man. Now, he has to make a decision that no matter what would effect the course of humanity. He knows soldiers, sons and fathers, were still fighting in the Pacific. How do you look someone in the eyes when his or her son or father has been killed knowing you had the technology to end it several months or years earlier? At that point, it wasn't about how many lives would be lost, it was either America or Japan. Though this was the most unethical option, it was the only option... - Hiroshima and Nagasaki, though not direct military bases, were strategic for attack. The factories that created most of Japan's weaponry and munitions were located in those citites, making them vital target locations. Unfortunately, civilians also live in cities. American aircraft actually dropped flyers describing the atomic bomb a day before the bombing as a type of warning. Hiroshima, bombed on August 6th of 1945, witnessed the most destructive weapon mankind has ever built. The Japanese were hesitant to surrender. The Emperor was a weak leader, under control of General Tojo. The Japanese military and people were something new during this time. The only way to defeat this type of mentality of fighting to the very end, killing you self not to be taken by the enemy, fighting with an extreme passion, and never surrender in the eyes of many was to kill as many as possible. 3 days later, Nagasaki was bombed. - The Emperor couldn't stand to see his people suffer and die like this. He urged for a surrender. However, the military still had the last say and refused to. The Japanese government let the 2nd bomb happen. They could've prevented the 2nd bomb from happening, but let it be dropped on its own people to "test" the U.S.. Russia then got involved several days later by threatening to invade Japan. Japan knew they couldn't handle more atomic bombs and an invasion, and formally surrendered on September 2nd of 1945. - After it all, an estimated 200 thousand lives were lost to the dropping of those bombs and the Japanese economy was ruined. However, America didn't sit back and watch them suffer. America helped them rebuild their economy and country for 10 years after WW2, which resulted in Japan years later to be greatly prospering. To this day, the constitution for Japan is known as the MacArthur Constitution because he introduced many of the new policies for Japan during the reconstruction. I might be missed a few more important points, but these are definitely strong ones to think about. Just thought I'd do this because of my history class. Been awhile since I've done something worth talking about, might as well be this. Please keep it serious as we are talking about a sensitive topic. No arguments or bait for this one (maybe the next one).
English
#Offtopic

게시물 작성 언어:

 

다른 사용자들을 존중해주세요. 게시물을 제출하기 전에 한 숨 돌리고 운영 정책을 검토하세요. 취소 수정 화력팀 생성하기 게시

  • "Genocide is not defendable" is the common saying. Yet they refuse to look at how the Japanese distracted us from Hitler. And I would consider NOT dropping the nuke to be a greater genocide. Either blow up a city and military target, or have hundreds and hundreds of thousands more die on BOTH sides.

    게시물 작성 언어:

     

    다른 사용자들을 존중해주세요. 게시물을 제출하기 전에 한 숨 돌리고 운영 정책을 검토하세요. 취소 수정 화력팀 생성하기 게시

    3 답변
    • Harry "Drops Bombs" Truman thought it was necessary. However, I don't think it was.

      게시물 작성 언어:

       

      다른 사용자들을 존중해주세요. 게시물을 제출하기 전에 한 숨 돌리고 운영 정책을 검토하세요. 취소 수정 화력팀 생성하기 게시

      1 답변
      • 작성자: shoarmabroodje86 4/15/2015 6:16:20 AM
        I didnt read all of the post but heres what i know: The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor to scare the Americans so they would sign a peace tweedy. That didnt happen, the Roosevelt said he would have vengeance instead and then they dropped the base. [spoiler]Tweedy= South Park reference .. scrubs[/spoiler]

        게시물 작성 언어:

         

        다른 사용자들을 존중해주세요. 게시물을 제출하기 전에 한 숨 돌리고 운영 정책을 검토하세요. 취소 수정 화력팀 생성하기 게시

      • Justified? Hard to say. Effective? Hell yeah. Nothing has ever ended a major war faster.

        게시물 작성 언어:

         

        다른 사용자들을 존중해주세요. 게시물을 제출하기 전에 한 숨 돌리고 운영 정책을 검토하세요. 취소 수정 화력팀 생성하기 게시

      • 작성자: SARS7691 4/15/2015 5:49:43 AM
        [spoiler]. [/spoiler]

        게시물 작성 언어:

         

        다른 사용자들을 존중해주세요. 게시물을 제출하기 전에 한 숨 돌리고 운영 정책을 검토하세요. 취소 수정 화력팀 생성하기 게시

      • I don't think there's ever a real justification for murder especially on the scale of an atom bomb. To decide to end thousands of people's lives- I just don't think anyone ever has the right to do that. The thing is, it's easy for someone like me to say that when I am not confronted with such a decision that places me in a position of responsibility. Don't think anyone of us truly knows what we would do in the heat of the moment. However, I wouldn't ever say that it was justified to do that. Even if it may not be clear what the solution is, there was probably a better way to go about everything. Maybe with the options presented, it was the most viable plan out of the other courses of action the U.S. could take.

        게시물 작성 언어:

         

        다른 사용자들을 존중해주세요. 게시물을 제출하기 전에 한 숨 돌리고 운영 정책을 검토하세요. 취소 수정 화력팀 생성하기 게시

      • 작성자: THE ANTAG0N1ST 4/14/2015 11:22:12 PM
        Russia coming in like "I got you bro" USA being all like "yeahhhh buddy" In the end tho . Russia didn't attack and to this day. The U.S one manned Japan . But Russia declared war on the Japanese . No peace treaty has been signed for peace with the two.

        게시물 작성 언어:

         

        다른 사용자들을 존중해주세요. 게시물을 제출하기 전에 한 숨 돌리고 운영 정책을 검토하세요. 취소 수정 화력팀 생성하기 게시

        4 답변
        • You either end the war with the bombs or go another 5 years of fighting causing even more lives to be lost on both sides than the bombs themselves.

          게시물 작성 언어:

           

          다른 사용자들을 존중해주세요. 게시물을 제출하기 전에 한 숨 돌리고 운영 정책을 검토하세요. 취소 수정 화력팀 생성하기 게시

        • The bombing were just to show how fast we can weaponize. Also it was just a tactic to so scare Japan, Soviet Union, and Germany into submission mostly the Axis powers. Soviet Union was an ally but they went through an arms race with U.S to see who can build bigger bombs and stuff.

          게시물 작성 언어:

           

          다른 사용자들을 존중해주세요. 게시물을 제출하기 전에 한 숨 돌리고 운영 정책을 검토하세요. 취소 수정 화력팀 생성하기 게시

        • http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option what about this

          게시물 작성 언어:

           

          다른 사용자들을 존중해주세요. 게시물을 제출하기 전에 한 숨 돌리고 운영 정책을 검토하세요. 취소 수정 화력팀 생성하기 게시

        • Straw eyes burn in hell. Hiroshima bombing best day of my life.

          게시물 작성 언어:

           

          다른 사용자들을 존중해주세요. 게시물을 제출하기 전에 한 숨 돌리고 운영 정책을 검토하세요. 취소 수정 화력팀 생성하기 게시

        • I read somewhere once that the top end estimate for US MILITARY casualties would be close to one million with an invasion of the Japanese mainland. Specifically due to the bushido code of the military where surrender was not an option. The invasion of the main islands would also bring in the civilian population as combatants and the U.S. feared a genocide just to win the war. The bombs became the lesser of two evils

          게시물 작성 언어:

           

          다른 사용자들을 존중해주세요. 게시물을 제출하기 전에 한 숨 돌리고 운영 정책을 검토하세요. 취소 수정 화력팀 생성하기 게시

          4 답변
          • Yes it was justified. The Japanese were not as close to beaten in 1945 as many think. In the months before the bombs they were actively moving units from mainland Asia back to Japan, mining harbors, building defenses, preparing the civilian population, etc... An analysis of what happened on Okinawa scaled to the size of what would be coming in Japan was grim.

            게시물 작성 언어:

             

            다른 사용자들을 존중해주세요. 게시물을 제출하기 전에 한 숨 돌리고 운영 정책을 검토하세요. 취소 수정 화력팀 생성하기 게시

          • Another Einstein quote. '[i]never believe that War no matter How necessary isn't a Crime[/i]. While I believe the bombs being dropped was the fastest way to end the war and one that also proved the might of the Nuclear bomb it is also responsible for why America is seen as a bully and why we have so much political tension about nations having nukes its a very two sided conversation with both sides having points of merit.

            게시물 작성 언어:

             

            다른 사용자들을 존중해주세요. 게시물을 제출하기 전에 한 숨 돌리고 운영 정책을 검토하세요. 취소 수정 화력팀 생성하기 게시

          • Yep

            게시물 작성 언어:

             

            다른 사용자들을 존중해주세요. 게시물을 제출하기 전에 한 숨 돌리고 운영 정책을 검토하세요. 취소 수정 화력팀 생성하기 게시

          • This one is to long to read bow chicka bow wow

            게시물 작성 언어:

             

            다른 사용자들을 존중해주세요. 게시물을 제출하기 전에 한 숨 돌리고 운영 정책을 검토하세요. 취소 수정 화력팀 생성하기 게시

          • I think it was justified. For a few reasons. My main reason being that it was a world war. In war, you fight to win. Not to protect the people of the country that just bombed you. ( Pearl Harbor. ) It is the president's responsibility to keep America's best interests first. If that means losing enemy civilians and soldiers along with important cities.. War is war. Nobody should expect war to be painless, deathless, and lossless. People die in war. ALSO. As the op stated, America did not have full intent on killing as many civilians as possible. They warned them. They did not expect the bombs to be as powerful as they were. Lack of knowledge doesn't justify it, but these incorrect calculations are not malicious of America. And finally... I'm assuming that none of you were alive during this time. We have all heard the saying: History is written by the victors. The reason I say this is that, we don't know everything. We don't know every little detail about those days. The things I stated in my previous paragraph could be completely false. The things you say to argue with eachother could, just POSSIBLY, be false as well. All I know is: In war, superpowers play to win. Domestic lives > Enemy lives. Simply put, of course.

            게시물 작성 언어:

             

            다른 사용자들을 존중해주세요. 게시물을 제출하기 전에 한 숨 돌리고 운영 정책을 검토하세요. 취소 수정 화력팀 생성하기 게시

          • History is written by the victors. What is right and wrong? We won't know if it was justified or not because others opinions have affected our own.

            게시물 작성 언어:

             

            다른 사용자들을 존중해주세요. 게시물을 제출하기 전에 한 숨 돌리고 운영 정책을 검토하세요. 취소 수정 화력팀 생성하기 게시

          • Simple question of them or us? Would you want to lose thousands if not hundreds of thousands of US military lives? Or would you rather take thousand and thousands of lives of Japanese both military and civilian. It's a simple but extremely tough question of them or us.

            게시물 작성 언어:

             

            다른 사용자들을 존중해주세요. 게시물을 제출하기 전에 한 숨 돌리고 운영 정책을 검토하세요. 취소 수정 화력팀 생성하기 게시

            11 답변
            • If i see one damned pretentious over saturated "history is written by the victor" quote........

              게시물 작성 언어:

               

              다른 사용자들을 존중해주세요. 게시물을 제출하기 전에 한 숨 돌리고 운영 정책을 검토하세요. 취소 수정 화력팀 생성하기 게시

              2 답변
              • The better of two evils. It was the safest, quickest, most efficient way to end the war. While I find it morally repugnant that such bombs were dropped on inhabited cities, I can't say I wouldn't do the same if faced with the decision of saving American lives while killing "innocents."

                게시물 작성 언어:

                 

                다른 사용자들을 존중해주세요. 게시물을 제출하기 전에 한 숨 돌리고 운영 정책을 검토하세요. 취소 수정 화력팀 생성하기 게시

              • Yes.

                게시물 작성 언어:

                 

                다른 사용자들을 존중해주세요. 게시물을 제출하기 전에 한 숨 돌리고 운영 정책을 검토하세요. 취소 수정 화력팀 생성하기 게시

              • TL;DR; but I did read the title. Basically, there was no strategic value in dropping the nukes; the war was effectively over. If someone wants to tackle the "did they deserve it" question, well that would be a personal opinion rather than an objective fact-based analysis. To ask these sorts of questions for the interesting concepts and opinions that arise from the discussion however, makes your question interesting and I would introduce another question to the discussion: "If it could be argued that the timing was opportune to drop the first nuke in order to discourage future wars, than why nuke japan twice? Why not nuke Germany twice? Why not nuke Japan once and Germany once?"

                게시물 작성 언어:

                 

                다른 사용자들을 존중해주세요. 게시물을 제출하기 전에 한 숨 돌리고 운영 정책을 검토하세요. 취소 수정 화력팀 생성하기 게시

                6 답변
                • Worth it yes there really isnt a question of whether or not

                  게시물 작성 언어:

                   

                  다른 사용자들을 존중해주세요. 게시물을 제출하기 전에 한 숨 돌리고 운영 정책을 검토하세요. 취소 수정 화력팀 생성하기 게시

                • Since it happened 70 years ago this really doesn't matter. But in my opinion, they bombed us so we bombed them back. So to me, they started it and we just finished it.

                  게시물 작성 언어:

                   

                  다른 사용자들을 존중해주세요. 게시물을 제출하기 전에 한 숨 돌리고 운영 정책을 검토하세요. 취소 수정 화력팀 생성하기 게시

                  3 답변
                  • Well it stopped WWII from continuing so yeah, and Japanese also tortured a lot of people and slaughtered innocents.

                    게시물 작성 언어:

                     

                    다른 사용자들을 존중해주세요. 게시물을 제출하기 전에 한 숨 돌리고 운영 정책을 검토하세요. 취소 수정 화력팀 생성하기 게시

                    9 답변
                    4 5 6 7 8 9
                    회원님은 해당 콘텐츠를 볼 수 없습니다.
                    ;
                    preload icon
                    preload icon
                    preload icon