Hiroshima 70th Anniversary

[Dark Specter]

You need to take into consideration that before the nukes were dropped that at the time no one really understood just how powerful they would be. Yes my nation tested them and saw a glimmer of its power during the test but then realized just how powerful it really was when they dropped the first two and realized that such a weapon should never be used. At the same time the united states was left with two options which were to invade japan with a normandy D-Day invasion that would cost the lives of hundreds of thousands and potential millions due to the fact that the japanese refused to surrender and chose to fight to the last man or test out a new weapon and see if it would end the war at a quicker pace. Thus the government chose the weapon and it ended the war immediately. But i wonder how many people know about the fact that the united states had plans to drop three of these bombs on japan if they refused to surrender after the first two were dropped. The third nuke was planned to be dropped on Tokyo.

 

[Vitaris Liguritio]

You need to take into consideration that before the nukes were dropped that at the time no one really understood just how powerful they would be. Yes my nation tested them and saw a glimmer of its power during the test but then realized just how powerful it really was when they dropped the first two and realized that such a weapon should never be used. At the same time the united states was left with two options which were to invade japan with a normandy D-Day invasion that would cost the lives of hundreds of thousands and potential millions due to the fact that the japanese refused to surrender and chose to fight to the last man or test out a new weapon and see if it would end the war at a quicker pace. Thus the government chose the weapon and it ended the war immediately. But i wonder how many people know about the fact that the united states had plans to drop three of these bombs on japan if they refused to surrender after the first two were dropped. The third nuke was planned to be dropped on Tokyo.

They only had two in their possession at the time. They threatened to drop more, but they only owned two.

Well, the United States has continuously murdered civilians (or supporting those that do) in the Philippines, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, supporting despotic regimes in Latin America, and that is only the tip of the iceberg. While there may be a few good reasons for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there are no excuses for those other atrocities.

Yup, I can list a lot more as well. I am simply stating that this specific event is not completely criminalizing the US. The US has many other reasons to be considered malicious, but I don't count this one as one of those events. Just my opinion of this specific matter.

 

[Khilafah]

 For those still claiming that dropping the atomic bomb, an act of pure unadulterated terrorism, was in any way necessary and ended the war...

Those in the highest levels of your military establishment would strongly disagree. 

  http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

In a trenchant new book, The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb (Praeger, 1996), historian Dennis D. Wainstock concludes that the bombings were not only unnecessary, but were based on a vengeful policy that actually harmed American interests. He writes (pp. 124, 132):

... By April 1945, Japan's leaders realized that the war was lost. Their main stumbling block to surrender was the United States' insistence on unconditional surrender. They specifically needed to know whether the United States would allow Hirohito to remain on the throne. They feared that the United States would depose him, try him as a war criminal, or even execute him ...

Unconditional surrender was a policy of revenge, and it hurt America's national self-interest. It prolonged the war in both Europe and East Asia, and it helped to expand Soviet power in those areas.

General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of US Army forces in the Pacific, stated on numerous occasions before his death that the atomic bomb was completely unnecessary from a military point of view: "My staff was unanimous in believing that Japan was on the point of collapse and surrender."

General Curtis LeMay, who had pioneered precision bombing of Germany and Japan (and who later headed the Strategic Air Command and served as Air Force chief of staff), put it most succinctly: "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war."

 

[Isaacia]

These numbers aren't just numbers. They were people. People like us. Try coming up with 129,000 people that you know, and imagine them all gone from your life. 

 

[alyster]

Lol, You don't know much about the Japanese people from WWII. They were just as brainwashed. It is pretty bad that so many civilians were killed, but it ended the war, and in the end saved more lives. A lot more people would've died if we were forced to do a land invasion. And if you don't think they were crazy, people were jumping off cliffs so that they wouldn't be conquered by us. Plus, they continued to fight, even AFTER the first bomb was dropped, haha. It was pretty bad. 

Ok. If they were brainwashed, I guess it\s okay to kill women and children behind the front lines. But just because you are sure they were brainwashed. 

Hiroshima was not the first nor last terror attack by the USAAF.  In March 1945 300+ bombers from USAAF set the Tokyo city a blaze.

Target inside Tokyo: living districts, mostly made of wood.

Bombs used: firebombs (napalm predecessors)

Casulties: 100 000 dead, 1 million homeless

And it's well documented that the purpose of these bombings, like in Germany against Hamburg (42 000 dead) and Dresden (25 000 dead) and other cities, was to inflict civilian casulties in order to break the morale. But as long as they were brainwashed, it's okay. 

 

[Vitaris Liguritio]

Ok. If they were brainwashed, I guess it\s okay to kill women and children behind the front lines. But just because you are sure they were brainwashed. 

Hiroshima was not the first nor last terror attack by the USAAF.  In March 1945 300+ bombers from USAAF set the Tokyo city a blaze.

Target inside Tokyo: living districts, mostly made of wood.

Bombs used: firebombs (napalm predecessors)

Casulties: 100 000 dead, 1 million homeless

And it's well documented that the purpose of these bombings, like in Germany against Hamburg (42 000 dead) and Dresden (25 000 dead) and other cities, was to inflict civilian casulties in order to break the morale. But as long as they were brainwashed, it's okay. 

Lmao, this has been dug up from its grave? 

I agree that it was an atrocity, but demonizing the US for a military tactic used by every nation in WWII to some extent is a lost cause.  Germany did it to the UK, the allies did it to Nazi Germany, Germany did it to the Soviet Union, Japan did it to China and South East Asia, the US did it to Japan. Honestly, the only thing that made the nuclear bombs different was the fear of what the weapons could possibly do at a large scale, not that it killed people. People died regardless of the weaponry in these cities because of the war that the Japanese extremist government brought upon them. The atrocity wasn't that citizens died, but that such a weapon was created and could be used at a grand scale.  

I also have to retract my statements saying that they were all brainwashed, because that is an ignorant statement. Obviously some citizens dissented with the government while others supported it. We saw the same thing in Nazi Germany. It is not ok because the beliefs of the majority opinion in Japan was radical, but I believe that due to the ignorance of the weapons long-term damage, and due to the fact that these cities would of inevitably been destroyed (whether by firebombs or a land/artillery invasion), the decision of bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was legitimate. You could argue that these were war crimes, but I am certain you would find much worse war crimes committed by the Japanese regime in Asia. 

 

[RoboMonkey]

It's tough to fully quantify the extent of damage that was done after the bombing of Hiroshima. Detonating a nuclear weapon is not just about civilian casualties. Essentially, a nuclear bomb, and the resulting irradiation of the the environment surrounding the blast, can be loosely considered chemical warfare. It's not the same traditional chemical warfare varieties such as Agent Orange, but instead it is a weapon that poisons an area for generations. It's an astounding weapon, but to be used on a civilian population is grotesque and frankly, kinda evil. Granted, the bombs were exploded at a high altitude which reduced the fallout that could have happened. But it's known that the US didn't do this out of consideration. If bombing the ground would have killed more people, then the US would have done it. I think in modern times we've come to the realization that killing civilians is definitely not nice, but we didn't live back when the bombs were dropped so we can't really relate.

Nonetheless, it fits the context of traditional warfare. People have always been killing civilians. Actually, "civilians" used to be the peasants and we all know how much they were raped and pillaged. In a modern context, a majority of the people on Earth can be considered mere "civilians" with only indirect access to policy making within their nations. While dropping the bomb made us win the war, you have to think about why they Japan actually surrendered. Yes it was obviously out of fear. But this fear was not only because they feared defeat, but because they also feared complete genocide of not only their people, but also their wildlife and entire habitat. This is what nuclear weapons do, chemically. And the fact that the USA has been the only nation to cross that line says something about us at a deeper level. And whatever it's saying is not good at all. Maybe we've changed. But that has yet been to be seen for sure.

 

[Rin]

The Japanese were already discussing surrender before the atomic bombs! The atomic bombs were there for unconditional surrender. There's a bunch of complicated reasons to get unconditional surrender, which included removing the Japanese emperor and war crime trials.

Today, we can look back and see what should have been done and what shouldn't have been done. Back look in the lens of both sides who didn't have this information. Many Japanese military leaders committed suicide right before the surrender. To them, surrender was worse than death.

The atomic bombs were no more destructive than the firebombings. But they were terrifying! The idea of a single bomb wiping out everything in a few km radius was unheard of.

The Japanese took the bomb as a bluff, a gimmick. Something that was impossible to create and done only once. Hence the second bomb was to convince the Japanese that they had a big supply and could wipe out every city in Japan if they wanted.

I can't say whether it's a terror attack, but it sounds like they killed a bunch of people to scare a small group into doing what they wanted.

It's unlikely that the Japanese would have done more war crimes before the atomic bombs were dropped. The bombings probably didn't save more lives. And you have to consider that they spent a LOT of money and effort into inventing the atomic bomb. Obviously, they wanted to use it.