History [DEBATE] Was the US wrong for nuking Japan?

Discussion in 'Serious Topics & Debates' started by Arrow, Jun 26, 2012.

  1. Hawaii and a lot of other islands would have been theirs. Take for granite we would of won them back eventually, but why would the US waste $40+ million dollars on fighting a war that can easily be prevented by dropping the A-Bomb? There are positive and negative consequences with every action. Killing 1000's of Japs was the consequence, but saving the US 40+ million dollars, and a lot of lives was the reward. So in my opinion, yes, it was ok to kill 1000's of people for our sake... Not to mention, they attacked pearl harbor.
     
  2. I'm not even going to bother to debate cause like a lot of American you can't see it from another viewpoint than your own.
     
  3. japan wanted to be all gay and get us into the war, they will think twice next time
     
  4. Nope, that's @[Mike.], (Sorry Mike. lol). Look at my last few posts Stopspot, I defended Vietnam.. If we truly don't have any reason to do the things that we do, I will defend the opposing country. We had no right being in Vietnam, and I defended that. Japan is a different story. I only argue my topic based off of research and facts, not just opinions, because opinions don't mean anything.
     
  5. I agree we should have but i think we will end up fighting again
     
  6. ww3
     
  7. Yea mike i just hope its not in our lifetime
     
  8. Nah. We had to show those retards we meant business. If you know anything about Japanese culture you know that they would have dragged that war out for as long as they could, and the body count would have been much higher than it was not only for Americans, but for the Japanese as well. It's unfortunate and I don't like the idea of killing civis, but had Japan just done the smart thing and waved the white flag they would have prevented it. The fact that they made us drop a 2nd by refusing to surrender after Hiroshima is crazy, especially since all of the other Axis powers had already surrendered. They were holding out just to be holding out.

    Just read up on the Potsdam Declaration and you'll know that the Japs forced our hand. Also for you Brits who may be opposed to it your boy Churchill gave us the O-K, so don't try and lay all the 'blame' at our feet.
     
  9. Fuck debating in this thread, too much wrong to begin to settle right.

    Dolph, you need to research radiation if you think not nuking them would have resulted in more Japanese deaths.

    Brainwashed.
     
  10. I know about the radiation, and again, it's unfortunate, but the blood is on the Japanese military/government's hands. They had the choice, and they made it. They made the wrong choice.

    Care to touch on anything else I said? I'm far from brainwashed, don't insult your own intelligence by pretending that I am.
     
  11. I don't know enough of the ins and outs to form a proper opinion, so will not make a comment on whether it should've been done or not.

    However I did get to go to the peace museum in Hiroshima which was incredible. Some of the stuff there was really sad but I was amazed to read that within 3 days of their entire city being nuked pratically, they managed to get the trainlines up and running again.

    Also gave an insight into the damage that we be done if there was ever a nuclear war in the future. Scary stuff.
     
  12. Brainwashed was towards Baby.

    The Japs definitely made a mistake bombing Pearl Harbour, but do two wrongs make a right? I don't know the figures of how many died because of that move by the Japanese, but I can easily find the millions-type figure affected directly and indirectly from the nuke bomb. People were vaporized in the streets. Think of it this way, imagine your parents both died because of a foreign nuclear bomb, you survived as you were out the country. That's just two people, two dead barely makes the news now'adays, but that would crush your world. Now imagine adding millions to that number, the amount of people affected. Even those who didn't die have their children born either dead or seriously deformed for years. Their kids have kids who are also deformed, all because of one bomb, because of one mistake.

    How can anyone defend that? Nuclear missiles shouldn't exist, and certainly should never be used.


    If you go to war with a country, you attack their military bases. Not the civilians, whether they did or not. America is supposed to be the face of capitalism.
     
  13. It did save lifes in the short term, an estimated 1,000,000 Japanese and 400,000 [Figures taken from here so don't taken them to literal, I'll try and find a clearer source however look a the effects it left in the medium term in Horishima From here including irreversible at the time of reporting at least, cell mutation leading to diseases such as Leukaemia and malignant lymphoma. This raises the moral question of whether the bomb saved these people, or delayed their deaths, signing a delayed death warrant if this is the correct term. Mortality rate was higher in the victims also, as shown in studies conducted for the previously mentioned article. Psychological issues were also raised, causing many people's standard of living to drop as they lost work and or family support.

    From my basic research, I have attempted to see the positive and negative reasoning for the debate of saving human life by the atomic bomb. I can't justify that statement in anything but the short term ( at 5 years maximum.) the bomb caused a lot of emotional distress and physical issues for the inhabitants of Nagasaki, so whilst they may have been alive they weren't really living a life just to the tragic events. Like I say this is very basic research, which isn't anything but a neutral basis for my opinion. I'm sure many will understand much more on the subject than me so feel free to mock in any which way you deem fit.
     
  14. They started it. We finished it. No reason for them bombing pearl harbor
    They drug the united states into the war. After that the US didn't have much choice except to finish it. Would have been much less catastrophic if they would have given up after the first one. The second one was somewhat unnecessary, but the war needed to be over, and that was the quickest solution.

    Like another poster mentioned above, their government definitely holds a lot of the blame for this happening to them.
     
  15. Again, please read up on the Potsdam Declaration and take that into consideration. The Japanese were given the ultimatum and made their choice, so Truman made his (again, with the consent of the Combined Policy Committee, including Churchill). The Japanese were clearly going to drag the war out for the foreseeable future, all of their allies had already surrendered, and they were showing their Bushido spirit (albeit ill advised to be doing so.) The fact that they still didn't give up after the first A-Bomb just goes to show you how far they were really willing to take it.

    As far as the radiation which seems to be your major qualm, I'm not sure that it was known that the lasting effects would be so serious, but I'm assuming they were not since the bombs had only recently been developed and it would have been nothing but speculation and projection on the long term results. You seem to think I'm completely ignoring this aspect but believe me I am not. It is terrible, and I feel for the people who are suffering the consequences of this. Again though, this is the fault of the Japanese military for not doing the smart thing and surrendering. If they had a time machine and could go back knowing what they know now it might have been a different choice, but at the time IMVHO the decision to drop the bombs was indeed justifiable.
     
  16. I don't need to read it, I already know it.

    All I'm reading is "Japanese Military made this mistake" which apparently justifies murdering civilians? If the military made the mistake - like every other war - you target the military. It wasn't the German people's fault that Hitler was a disgusting human being, so you invade their country, take down their military, capture them, trial them for their crimes THEN kill terminate them.

    There is no target setting for Nuclear war heads, they just shouldn't exist, period. Whether they "knew about the effects" or not, which is bullshit imo.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. What is there to converse about?! they nuked a country twice. NO ONE DESERVES THIS. This is why our empire is disgusting, and China (communism, 2nd rate citizens, etc) are more powerful. I just thank God i'm not France or the UK, as you will be the first to be third world countried, they will just keep feeding us Big mac's for a dollar, and artificial sweeteners replacing water. Anyone see Idiocracy? Welcome to the US by 2050.

    __________

    This is the kind of stuff i end up getting hate mail over, this isn't even deserving of a discussion.
     
  18. Lol @ UK and France being third-world countried. In Randy Savage's terms, "NO CHANGE IN HELL".
     
  19. STFU! ASHLEY CHINA HATES YOU MORE THAN THE FATTIES IN US AND BORK IS FROM US SO NO ONE TOUCH US! THE BEST THING FROM ENGLAND IS SOCCER! PIPE BOMB.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. I actually started coughing, thanks Aids.