do you think the bombings of hiroshima was good or bad.

[Kual9]

discuss plz/give ur output. im doing a project and i need every1s input.. all inputs will get +rep'd

[Turokcalde]

Of course it's bad, what a great, original way to end the war.

Americans didn't measure the terrible consequences of the nuclear bomb, people of hiroshima are still suffering the collateral effects of the nuclear radiation. Could've ended it sending a couple of batallions, but they wanted the easy, yet terrible way.

[Colby]

Originally Posted by Turokcalde

Of course it's bad, what a great, original way to end the war.

Americans didn't measure the terrible consequences of the nuclear bomb, people of hiroshima are still suffering the collateral effects of the nuclear radiation. Could've ended it sending a couple of batallions, but they wanted the easy, yet terrible way.

Oh yeah, a couple of batallions! Because, considering several of our "batallions" had already been captured/killed and tortured horribly as POW's (including random decapitation), why wouldn't we want to send another several thousand to the slaughter house? So what if we lost another 30,000, at least we would have won without the bombs.

We had two options, kill of more American lives (Which by the way, was getting pretty tiresome, and heart wrenching to Americans) or drop the bombs whose effects we had no idea of. I would have done the same thing in the same situation, because it's one thing to drop a bomb you KNOW will have those sorts of effects, but the Atom Bomb during WWII was still new and not tested throughly enough.

In times of war, it is imperative to keep the spirits of the people up and everyone was tired of the War and just wanted everyone to come home. Can you say you blame them? The war had taken so many, the American people probably were glad to see a final solution that didn't involve the loss of even another single life.

I think it was a good decision at the time because we didn't know, if confronted with a similar situation today I couldn't say, but our nukes are a lot stronger now and we know a lot more about them and I can say that if it meant the difference of millions of lives, maybe...but anything below that would be a bad idea, since it would be killing more than it's saving.

Plus, every other country has nukes too, so we would be in for a world of hurt if we ever made the blow. Fact remains, we WARNED the Japanese, we gave them time to give up, it was our last option.

[slingblader]

Originally Posted by Turokcalde

Of course it's bad, what a great, original way to end the war.

Americans didn't measure the terrible consequences of the nuclear bomb, people of hiroshima are still suffering the collateral effects of the nuclear radiation. Could've ended it sending a couple of batallions, but they wanted the easy, yet terrible way.

Actually, conservative estimates were around 300k American troops, and a ridiculous amount of Japanese, both civilian and not. The reality of the world is that, what wins is right. It's as simple as that. Morals cannot dispute the fact that it worked. Was it too much? Matter of opinion, but even by those conservative estimates, more lives were saved than lost. Around a total of 250-270k Japanese totaled died with the "direct effects" and extremely still low numbers are affected today. Unfortunate? Surely. But you still can't fairly say it was a completely uncalled for drastic movement, especially considering it may have very well saved lives.

[Tranquility]

Originally Posted by Pwnz0rizer

discuss plz/give ur output. im doing a project and i need every1s input.. all inputs will get +rep'd

The bombings huh...meh, no.

The bombs caused alot of radiation, which well...killed many people.

But thing is, they were somehow forced to do it as Japan, at that time, wouldn't stop WWII.

So,

Pros: Ended WWII, helped countries to be free of Japan's reign (Singapore ), ended the war fast to prevent more battles.

Cons: Killed many people, harmful radiation.

If you need to include WWII in your project, you might want to use Singapore as an example

[manofsparrow]

I'm not too hot on bombing civilians.

[Colby]

Originally Posted by manofsparrow

I'm not too hot on bombing civilians.

Well I don't think anyone in that situation was, I think it's a common misconception that the US was gung-ho to throw nukes everywhere, we did everything in our power to prevent that, it had to happen though. The war might have trudged on several more years otherwise.

[Pitbull]

Originally Posted by Billionz

Oh yeah, a couple of batallions! Because, considering several of our "batallions" had already been captured/killed and tortured horribly as POW's (including random decapitation), why wouldn't we want to send another several thousand to the slaughter house? So what if we lost another 30,000, at least we would have won without the bombs.

We had two options, kill of more American lives (Which by the way, was getting pretty tiresome, and heart wrenching to Americans) or drop the bombs whose effects we had no idea of. I would have done the same thing in the same situation, because it's one thing to drop a bomb you KNOW will have those sorts of effects, but the Atom Bomb during WWII was still new and not tested throughly enough.

In times of war, it is imperative to keep the spirits of the people up and everyone was tired of the War and just wanted everyone to come home. Can you say you blame them? The war had taken so many, the American people probably were glad to see a final solution that didn't involve the loss of even another single life.

I think it was a good decision at the time because we didn't know, if confronted with a similar situation today I couldn't say, but our nukes are a lot stronger now and we know a lot more about them and I can say that if it meant the difference of millions of lives, maybe...but anything below that would be a bad idea, since it would be killing more than it's saving.

Plus, every other country has nukes too, so we would be in for a world of hurt if we ever made the blow. Fact remains, we WARNED the Japanese, we gave them time to give up, it was our last option.

i agree .

[Chokichi]

ofc it was good, take into consideration if we had used a different method the war wouldn't have ended and thus a different winner could have emerged... you probs wouldn't be sitting here now asking us for advice because we all wouldn't exist because england or where ever in the world could be ran by Japanese forces.

[manofsparrow]

Originally Posted by Chokichi

ofc it was good, take into consideration if we had used a different method the war wouldn't have ended and thus a different winner could have emerged... you probs wouldn't be sitting here now asking us for advice because we all wouldn't exist because england or where ever in the world could be ran by Japanese forces.

No, they would still lose. It would just take longer.

I'm wondering if they could of chosen a better place to nuke and still end the war.

[Chokichi]

Originally Posted by manofsparrow

No, they would still lose. It would just take longer.

I'm wondering if they could of chosen a better place to nuke and still end the war.

There is no certainty in war. Japan may not have fell, it falls to possibility.

The war had to be ended in a dramatic way else nothing would have worked and the level of weapons used would have just risen until.. yes a nuclear bomb, but would it be on your side?

[manofsparrow]

Originally Posted by Chokichi

There is no certainty in war. Japan may not have fell, it falls to possibility.

No, at the time, it was the World vs Japan. Japan was a small country, although it was occupying China. Unless they quickly invented nukes for themselves, they would have lost.

The war had to be ended in a dramatic way else nothing would have worked and the level of weapons used would have just risen until.. yes a nuclear bomb, but would it be on your side?

I'm more of a "There's always an answer that doesn't involve nuking people" person. If I had motivation, I'd think of another way.

[Colby]

Originally Posted by manofsparrow

No, they would still lose. It would just take longer.

I'm wondering if they could of chosen a better place to nuke and still end the war.

Well, they probably would have lost yes, but even if they had Japan would be better to live under than Germany, since Hitler wanted to do some pretty crazy ****, Japan just wanted the land for the resources and extra room. We would probably be second class, but we would have the opportunity for education and a life doing a trade of some sort. (As opposed to Hitler, who basically wanted anyone important killed in concentration camps, and anyone black/other color that wasn't white.) All the Americans would be treated as slaves to their Nazi "masters" and the whole Eastern US would be plunged into depression, famine, and racism, until everyone who wasn't a Nazi was expunged from existence.

As far a choosing a better place, we never intended to hit Hiroshima, we wanted to bomb Nagasaki and Tokyo, but the plane got off course and we ended bombing Hiroshima instead. Luckily for us, it was still enough to get the job done.

Originally Posted by manofsparrow

I'm more of a "There's always an answer that doesn't involve nuking people" person. If I had motivation, I'd think of another way.

Meh, it was a pressured situation, it wasn't as if we exactly had all the time in the world, and the bomb was a lot less threatening to us back then because we had little idea of the after effects. We just thought it a really big ass explosion.

[manofsparrow]

Originally Posted by Billionz

Well, they probably would have lost yes, but even if they had Japan would be better to live under than Germany, since Hitler wanted to do some pretty crazy ****, Japan just wanted the land for the resources and extra room. We would probably be second class, but we would have the opportunity for education and a life doing a trade of some sort. (As opposed to Hitler, who basically wanted anyone important killed in concentration camps, and anyone black/other color that wasn't white.) All the Americans would be treated as slaves to their Nazi "masters" and the whole Eastern US would be plunged into depression, famine, and racism, until everyone who wasn't a Nazi was expunged from existence.

The bad part: Look at what Japan was doing to China.

Meh, it was a pressured situation, it wasn't as if we exactly had all the time in the world, and the bomb was a lot less threatening to us back then because we had little idea of the after effects. We just thought it a really big ass explosion.

Yeah, the United States was actually planning to drop at least 4 more bombs.
Anyways, Japan was considering surrendering sometime before the war ended, although there were some extremists.

[Colby]

Originally Posted by manofsparrow

The bad part: Look at what Japan was doing to China.

Yes, but Japan had/has always considered China below them and less respectable, Japan I think held a certain reverence for the US, sort of like Hitler who actually at one point in time considered the US a great nation that has merely been infected with some sort of "Jewish Virus".

Yeah, the United States was actually planning to drop at least 4 more bombs.
Anyways, Japan was considering surrendering sometime before the war ended, although there were some extremists.

Every day the war went on lives were being lost, and like I said before, we did warn them. I think most civilians in Japan wanted the war to end, but the leaders were in control and they didn't. I think the leaders of Japan were willing to sacrifice every last man woman and child if it meant a win.