Subject: atomic bomb blasts
Posted by: borddog
Date: Aug 07 08
The 63rd anniversary of the atomic bomb blasts over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is about to pass. While it killed mostly noncombatants it also brought a swift end to the war. I was wondering what the thoughts were both for and against these actions.
Posted by: borddog
Date: Aug 07 08
The 63rd anniversary of the atomic bomb blasts over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is about to pass. While it killed mostly noncombatants it also brought a swift end to the war. I was wondering what the thoughts were both for and against these actions.
141 replies. On page 1 of 8 pages. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
veronikkamarrz 
|
The tremendous loss of civilian life is appalling. I've seen film clips of the horror. However, I think the fact that it "brought a swift end to the war" says it all. Reply #1. Aug 07 08, 5:51 PM |
shazy95
|
I think it is absolutely horrible. It was killing poor innocent people which I hate. Reply #2. Aug 07 08, 6:55 PM |
Catamount
|
In some people's opinion, the two atomic bombs "brought a swift end to the war". Others disagree; claiming there are indications that Japan would have surrendered very soon anyway. I guess we'll never know, since we can't go back and replay history. In my personal opinion, this was a war crime, especially since the effects of radiation went far beyond the initial deaths, causing cancers and genetic mutations for survivors even today, and who knows for how many generations. Reply #3. Aug 07 08, 8:17 PM |
tnrees
|
I heard they were still preparing suicide troops - eveyone knows the pilots but apparently they were building underwater shelters so suicide divers were not killed by the explosions caused by other suicide divers. Reply #4. Aug 08 08, 5:37 AM |
neveragain01
|
Should war be brought to a "swift end" by means of fantastical killing machines that render the infliction of mass casualties a remote and largely sterile undertaking? Or would it be better for the well-being of our species for the killing inherent in war to have remained a bloody, wearying, horrid, very intimately personal undertaking? Perhaps the more impersonal war is, the easier for (and more likely is) a nation to decide that it must kill to have its way. Reply #5. Aug 08 08, 6:23 AM |
| sherry75
|
A sad day for the world Reply #6. Aug 08 08, 8:21 AM |
woody156
|
The war had been a long, bloody, hard fought, and unappealing struggle. Most western nations knew this, but the war hadn't come to the Japanese home islands, like it had for the other Axis powers. I think public opinion turned after the bombings, and the powers that be realized they were in an untenable position. Wars tend to be more popular at the beginning, and I think the American leaders realized the public didn't have the stomach for another two years of meat grinding that the Pacific war had been up until then. Don't forget, the cold war had already started, and they were also sending a message to Stalin.... Reply #7. Aug 08 08, 8:36 AM |
borddog
|
I does seem to me that the closer the hostilities came to Japan the more tenacious they fought. They had all sorts of tricks still up theirs sleeves. Those who predicted casualties for MacArthur and Nimitz were rather accurate in the battles before and I've heard they were predicting over 100,000 American and maybe into the millions for the Japanese. While waiting for a "possible surrender" thousands allied POWs were suffering and dieing and faced being wiped out if allied troops marched nearby. Many Japanese soldiers, located on some islands fought on one group did not emerge until 1974. So it's safe to say, there was a great fanaticism present. I don't see the bombings as a war crime, but I need to brush up on that term, for much of Japan's war factories were destroyed so production of parts were switched to home shops. Had they not surrenders massive destruction was to rain on them from conventional weapons or nuclear. I think the incidents tended to make it clear and simple to the Japanese leadership; one bomb = one city. How many cities do we have? How many bombs can they have? It's over. Reply #8. Aug 08 08, 8:42 AM |
| borddog
|
Sad from some views yes and I will keep in my in my thoughts and prayers those who perished, suffered and may continue to suffer as a result of those bombs. But I remember my grandfather saying he was happy that the war ended. He did not have to face more months of sacrifice, possible death, having his liver eaten or facing some other diabolical fate. I imagine there were millions of others at the time that had similar feelings. They were able to resume a more desirable and normal lives. We all remember the images of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they are well documented and somewhat common to find. But the horrors that did not have to be suffered by both sides can never be fully appreciated. So on balance I find it both somber yet not regrettable. I wish Japan had surrendered earlier or better still had never started such horrific aggression in the first place. Borddog Reply #9. Aug 08 08, 7:40 PM |
| Catamount
|
I suppose we can all say amen to that. And also wish the imperial European powers had never invaded Asia, Africa, etc. But two wrongs, or three or four, still don't make a right. We can mourn the dead, but the best thing we can do for their memory is to do our utmost to ensure it never happens again. Reply #10. Aug 08 08, 8:20 PM |
s-m-w
|
The use of such a weapon is seen by some as a quick end to a terrible war. Its seen by others as an affront to the human race and one of the single most hideous war atrocities in history, aimed to maim or mutilate indiscriminantly , not only on its execution but in the future, it also served as a warning to the world of just how shortsighted man could behave . Funny to see children trying hard to excuse such actions, wonder how they would feel if they had an illness which could still be connected to that fateful day as many do. Excuses have been made, but nothing changes the truth, its use is now historical fact and the perpetrators and those directly affected have to live with it Suppose it all depends whether you were on the giving or the receiving side as to your own reaction to this. Reply #11. Aug 09 08, 12:45 PM |
| borddog
|
"The use of such a weapon is seen by some as a quick end to a terrible war." As seen by some? I say there is no doubt and restate,"One bomb = one city. How many cities do we have? How many bombs can they have? It's over." Once again force wins the day and in this case was right. An alternative would have been to not use them, continue the conventional bloody strugle for perhaps 1-2 more years (With mostley American and Japanese blood being shed; not English)and we would be talking about many more casualties, ones that could have been avoided had the Enola Gay and Boxcar not done what they should have. Borddog Reply #12. Aug 09 08, 3:15 PM |
| borddog
|
Furthermore I fail to see the decision to save over 100,000 U.S. casualtiies as an excuse and the term "perpetrator" woefully inaccurate, for the word perpetrator should be saved for the bombing of Pearl Harbor nearly four years before while a nation was at rest. Borddog Reply #13. Aug 09 08, 8:05 PM |
Cymruambyth
|
Borddog, American troops were not the only troops fighting the Japanese in the South Pacific. There were Australians, New Zealanders, Indians (Ghurkas) and Brits, too. I remember the absolutely gutwrenching newsreel films of the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I'll give you Hiroshima, even though there were indications that the Japanese were on the verge of surrender, but Nagasaki was overkill and unnecessary. Even Truman had a hard time living with that one, and he was the President who had a sign on his desk reading: "The buck stops here." I understand that the two pilots who flew over the two cities to drop the bombs had a hard time dealing with it for the rest of their lives, too. War against combatants is one thing, but war against civilians is something else again. Reply #14. Aug 09 08, 9:12 PM |
| veronikkamarrz
|
I agree completely, borddog. How does it happen that years later, the victims are the bad guys? Reply #15. Aug 09 08, 9:13 PM |
| borddog
|
"American troops were not the only troops fighting the Japanese in the South Pacific. There were Australians, New Zealanders, Indians (Ghurkas) and Brits, too." Yes, I am aware and I very much appreciate all the sacrifices made by those you mentioned and I regret not mentioning them and the Pilipino guerillas. But let’s be realistic here, they were in more of a defensive role. The planed operations (Olympic and Coronet) for the conventional offensive battles in Japan, called for initially over 15 U.S. divisions of army infantry alone. I am sure we could have counted on our allies for some help but I gather you understand the USA were to face the brunt of the allied fighting. “Nagasaki was overkill and unnecessary” What part of war is underkill and necessary? I know you or myself did not have to face the fighting that would have ensued. But I guarantee you millions of uniformed allies and their families felt it was necessary. Japan was urged to surrender and warned terrible destruction was about to ensue they chose not to heed it. They moved their war production away from factories and into peoples houses. The shame lies there not on this side of the Pacific. “I understand that the two pilots who flew over the two cities to drop the bombs had a hard time dealing with it for the rest of their lives, too.” Really now? Do you know the name of the pilot of the Enloa Gay? His name was Paul Tibbits. In 2002 Tibbets told Studs Terkel: "Second thoughts? No. Studs, look. Number one, I got into the air corps to defend the United States to the best of my ability. That's what I believe in and that's what I work for.... So, no, I had no problem with it. I knew we did the right thing because when I knew we'd be doing that I thought, yes, we're going to kill a lot of people, but by God we're going to save a lot of lives. We won't have to invade (Japan)." So much for his regrets, please don’t mislead people with what you think might have happened or wish had happened. I'm going to the Hamptons. Borddog Reply #16. Aug 09 08, 10:34 PM |
| Cymruambyth
|
Sorry, Borddog - I was going by by a quote from another source. Thanks for setting the record straight. Reply #17. Aug 12 08, 12:07 PM |
| Cymruambyth
|
I still stand by my statement that dropping the atomic bomb on Nagasaki was unnecessary and overkill. Hiroshima did the trick. Reply #18. Aug 12 08, 12:08 PM |
Professer
|
What happened in Hiroshima and nagasaki did bring the war in the pacific to a rapid end, While i feel the later was a uneccesary action i feel it was a means to a end. I finished my schooling in singapore and was priviliged to hear the commanding officer speak about the war. He told how appalled he was at the orders they had to carry out towards the Allied troops he said the horror that occured in Japan was neccesary as they were told never to surrender. This man was responsible of the appaling treatment of the Bishop of Singapore, he did convert to christianity, having seen the war graves there i feel what was done had to be done. And lets be honest about it there has been no need for the bomb to be used since,As the world saw what happened and do not what to see that happening again thats is why we have effectively not had a another world war. Reply #19. Aug 12 08, 1:03 PM |
BxBarracuda
|
"And lets be honest about it there has been no need for the bomb to be used since,As the world saw what happened and do not what to see that happening again thats is why we have effectively not had a another world war." I could not have put it better myself Prof. Reply #20. Aug 12 08, 1:38 PM |
141 replies. On page 1 of 8 pages. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Legal / Conditions of Use
|
|
: