WW2: Atomic Bombs

[doodlefolks]

I overheard some kids at school arguing about this and it made me start thinking. I'd like to know what you guys think.

Was Truman's decicion to drop the two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki a good decision, or was it just plainly immoral?

I don't have time now but I'll respond later.

[Wing Zero]

thi soudns like an ap question for soem reason

[Auron]

I find it to be a little both becuase Truman knew the devastation they would cause and it was targeted at major civilian populated areas and killing many and causing permanent damge to the area but then again who knows what would have happened if the United States didn't Japanese sure wouldn't have stop their war of conquest without something major happening to them.

But I would lean more to it being immoral.

[Magikarp]

We dropped atomic bombs during WWII?

[CelestialBadger]

The thread title should be "WTF: ATOMIC BOMBS???"

[x42bn6]

I am pretty sure there were more civilised and safer ways of killing thousands of civilians, yes.

Any bomb, atomic or otherwise, does not deserve to be in this world.*

[TrongaMonga]

Civilians are not paid to die. And those suffered enough. It was very immoral and selfish of him to use those bombs.

Just like collateral damage. It is immoral because no one even trys to fix it, or stop the bombing of military targets in civilian areas untill the collateral damage is minimized to target in question.

[please help me :(]

Good Decision.
haha let these ****ers die.We will Blow this planet to kingdom come.

[Гражданин СССР]

In my opinion what should have been done was dropping it in a non-populated area but close enough so the Emperor would notice. Either way the second bomb fell after Japan expressed the desire to surrender, there was absolutely no point to it.

However, running a risk of being called a yankiee doodle, I must say that the bomb was a great strategical decision. War in its very nature is immoral, you can't have a war there everyone plays nice.

[TrongaMonga]

That is true, but there is a difference between the military and civilians. It was possibly against the Geneva Convention that that thing was done.

[CelestialBadger]

Kids are born with cancer in Japan, like some sort of sick epilogue to a play they had no part in. **** the US. If you think strategy > kids with cancer, **** you too.

[Гражданин СССР]

Originally Posted by TrongaMonga

That is true, but there is a difference between the military and civilians. It was possibly against the Geneva Convention that that thing was done.

I am not saying it was right from any moral standpoint. I am saying that in war morality plays no value.

[TrongaMonga]

As I said, that is what the Geneva convention is there for, to bring a bit of moral into the war.

The Geneva convention expressly talks about the death of civilians, the said colateral damage, that should be avoided at all costs. I don't think that was a 'at all cost'.

[kirby2]

Chemical weapons are better, they kill all the civillians and leave all of the infrastructure intact.

[Dark Blade]

It broke down to this, should we send in more American troops to be killed, when we'd still probably win? Or do we bomb them, having as little American deaths as possible?


It's easy to see why it was picked. We were looking out for number one.

[Hamtaro]

What's done is done, no one can change it, no one can fix it, get over it

[doodlefolks]

The atomic bomb was a good desicion because it was strategic. Without the bombs, Japan never would surrender. Without the surrender or a peaceful end the US or another country would have to invade. That invasion would be extremely dangerous and kill millions of soldiers and still would probably not defeat the Japs. By that time they had a very strong military.

To the guy that said the second bomb was useless:
The Japanese did not surrender until after the second bomb was dropped although some think they were about to surrender.

To the guy who's pissed at America because the Japanese children are born with cancer:
They must be really ****ing stupid if they can't even think of moving out of the area until the radiation goes away. And don't give me any shit about not having enough room to move. The ****ers need to reduce there ****ing population anyway. They could just stop having children. Ever think of that you damn Japanese?

[TrongaMonga]

By the way, saving American lives was not the only reason why it was launched. Russia was another. And the need to show might was other.

[Master.America]

I'd like to mention that the poll is loaded. Good decision or immoral? This poll suggests that anyone who thinks that the bombing was a bad decision must be basing his opinion on religious morals. Which, of course, just isn't true. Come on, man... good decision, bad decision. It's as simple as that.

Was it a good decision? Strategically, yes. Morally? No. While the bombing stopped Japan in its tracks, it killed a lot of innocent civilians. Why Truman didn't get tried for war crimes is beyond me.

[Dark Blade]

Some say that Hiroshima and Nagasaki can be attributed to one of the causes of the Cold War. Some historians debate that the reason Truman gave it the "OK" was to intimidate Russia.



Oh, and nice custom title, Master.America.