Atomic bombs?

[Drunken Tiger]

Hello all,

I would like to ask for your opinion on the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki...

Basically, i need to do a feature article for my university assignment, and i would like to get some input from you all...

If you were around in 1945, id love to set up an interview... (which i highly doubt any of you are)

But questions to look at,

1. What are youre feelings about the bombing of HIroshima and Nagasaki?
2. Was it vital to end world war 2?
3. How has the world progressed since then?
4. What is your view on the possession and the use of nuclear weapons in the 21st century?

Id like to thank you guys/girls in advance for helping out!!



Note: You may be quoted for my article, just to let you guys know.

[Daarkseid]

1.
The cost of using those weapons was great, but I greatly fear what would have happened if the bomb hadn't been introduced at the end of the war, and not gradually deployed by both the US and Soviet Union in what would've been an inevitable post WWII war between the superpowers over western European soil. Both sides would've likely deployed nukes simultaneously and used them, at first, indiscriminately, inflicting a MUCH greater toll upon humanity than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. This when you also consider the huge loss of life to conventional armed conflict that was likely to occur between US and Soviet forces. Instead history has favored us by not only allowing WWII to end with the hundreds of thousands of civilian lives(as opposed to the projected millions), and the cold war ended peacefully, with no further nuclear weapons used against civilian populations.

2.
Not vital, we had the resources and the men to bring down Japan, but it could've come at a terrible cost to not just American lives but Japanese as well.

3.
Pretty much by not nuking each other. I guess humans are more cowardly than stupid; the cold war was brought close to conflict a few times, but it never resulted in the nuclear holocaust people feared. However we also have the threat of terrorists getting ahold of a nuke and setting it off...

4.
I hope that if nukes are used, everyone goes crazy and sets off more. I'm not sure I want to live in a world that would most likely meltdown economically because some huge city in our world economy was demolished by a few shortsighted radicals. 9/11 helped to further aggravate America's economic situation, and that simply destroyed a block of buildings, and had slightly larger area of New York shut down for months. Having the entire city leveled by a single act of terrorism would cause some serious damage, and leave us wondering if anyone can ever truly be safe.

[DarkPanther]

After that response, all you need to hear from is JayeM for her first hand perspective. ;p

[AtmaWeapon]

1. We wanted to end the war quickly with the least cost to US soldiers possible. Japan was arming its citizens and preparing for a land invasion. We warned them we'd rain destruction upon them and they ignored the warning. We did what was necessary and what seemed right at the time. I believe if we knew then what havoc we would create we would still have made the same decision.

2. Japan was preparing its civilians to fight US soldiers in the event of a land invasion. While attrition would be on our army's side, Japan could not have been taken via land without a significant amount of US casualties. Additionally, the Japanese population would be decimated. We dropped two bombs that ended Japanese conflict with less casualties than any other method we had available. Though we had the possibility of land invasion, I believe the difficulty of such an attack and the casualties inflicted on both sides left us no other option but to drop atomic bombs. If "vital" means we had no other option, then no. If "vital" means it was the only feasible way we could accomplish our objectives, then yes.

3. Now I believe weaponry has advanced to the point that an atom bomb is more insurance than a feasible weapon. Our weaponry allows us to control what targets are damaged, so we can focus on military objectives and minimize civilian loss of life. If the same situation as in WWII were to exist today, I believe we would solve the problem with missiles and achieve victory with far less casualties.

4. Politically, a country without nukes is less significant than a country with nukes. However, it is difficult to justify using a nuclear weapon at this point in time, so I believe we'd be much better off if somehow all nuclear weapons were disarmed and somehow our knowledge of them could be erased. Barring that, we are in a dangerous stalemate with any countries that have even one nuke.

[Lilith]

I was in Hiroshima a couple of months ago so instead of going off into a long rant I'll try and keep it short.

1. I think it was unnessescary and stupid. Nuclear warfare is probably the most self-defeating, anti-evolutionary kind there is. Besides that, there's the obvious focus on a civilian toll instead of you know, actually fighting the enemy, which is just dumb.

2. No. "Oh no, but we would have had to fight in the islands." Yes, but who was fighting the islands? Oh yeah, SOLDIERS. Which I think is what war was supposed to be all about. Maybe more lives would have been lost, but these were lives that had already sworn to die for their nations. There was a civilian toll, but that's not the total focus. Japan was already falling, no need to decimate two cities and ruins civilian lives physically and emotionally for generations.

3. Without learning very much about what happened.

4. No one even understands what we have. I wish we could rid ourselves of them, but there's such an LOL NUKES ARE AWESOME AND POWERFUL stigma that we can't right now. Because people don't really understand what they do.
It's mind-boggling to me, who has actually visited the place, spoken with survivors, seen all the effects and facts and scientific studies, and heard about how it still effects people today, that people still think it was "vital" or that we had no other choice. I don't even try arguing with people over it, because there is a certain point where you have to stop and say "I've been there. You haven't." because there's really no other way to put it. There's no way to refute someone who just thinks "people died" there. They just don't know, and if they refuse to know...then there's nothing else you can say.

[Beldaran]

1. What are youre feelings about the bombing of HIroshima and Nagasaki?

I'm glad we ended a war we didn't start decisively and violently. Japan declarad total war on us, and they got total war. War is nothing less than total commitment to the destruction of your enemy. If nuking entire populations of our enemy's people will save US lives, then I say do it twice.

2. Was it vital to end world war 2?

No. But it was vital to end the war with the minimal cost to American lives, and that's all that matters to me.

3. How has the world progressed since then?

With the tyrants of Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany deposed, a new generation of corruption and tyrants has arisen. It is up to this generation of free people to confront them as decisvely and violently as did the previous generation.

4. What is your view on the possession and the use of nuclear weapons in the 21st century?

I think free republics and democracies should be allowed to possess them to protect people's freedom, and socialist, communist, and oppressive nations should be militarily kept from posessing them.

[carrot red]

1. I feel that if it weren't for the bombing there, a lot of us might not have been here today. If you're thinking about casualties, think about Okinawa. More people were killed there than in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

2. I co-sign with Bel. It resulted in the prompt Japanese surrender, and that's what matters to me.

3. I agree with Atma on this one.

4. Nuclear weapons should not be allowed to fall into the hands of tyrants.

[slothman]

Yes it was horrible but my thought is that it was needed. Without it WWII would have ended but it could take years and many causalities longer.
Of course there are theories that Japan might have surrendered quickly anyways with a USSR attack soon. They declared war days before VJ day.
Fortunately they have not been used in battle since. Because of MAD it looks like, even with an insane leader, they won't be used. I mean would you shoot someone if it was guaranteed you would die a short, lingering, aren't those contradictory, and painful death even before the bullet hit the recipient?
They can't go away. They probably won't be used. Remember 7 countries have them and none, of course since WWII, have used them. At least 3 others might or are trying research them. I doubt they would use them either. A leader isn't like an ordinary crook. A crook would likely use any weapon to his advantage but someone who gets ahead would be less prone to do anything. How many Stalins would rob a victim at gunpoint?
I like the Civilization reason of them. In that game people fear you more if you have them and they don't. They also are afraid of you but less so if they do as well. Neither side will use them, or at least I have never seen that since they instantly lose as respect and reputation from everyone else, including allies, and may be targets themselves. A regular attack, terroristic or normal, won't create that effect.
Now yes I haven't been to either of those cities so I don't know second-hand what happened. I have seen pictures with people's skin falling off and weeping because their children are gone and smoke and rubble is everywhere. I have seen pictures of people in the hospitals and they make a horror movie look almost beautiful.
I haven't seen the Dresden, or German equivalent, bombings which killed people as horribly but I do know they are bad. And they weren't even nuclear.
Stalin said, "one person is a tragedy, a million is a statistic."
I created, "For every 1000 person statistic are 1000 families that will never be the same." If they are the 1000 person then it is even worse.
I do agree that they were needed. Of course that is hindsight and knowing what would probably happen without them. Well I don't know what would happen and can only speculate. Many people come up with both sides so it is hard to figure out the eventuality.

[theplustwo]

I, for one, have learned to stop worrying and love the bomb.