Page 1 of 5
#1
In my World History class, we're required to pick a side on Monday about whether or not we believe the atomic bombs should have been dropped on Japan; I was curious as to what The Pit thought of this. Do you think the atomic bombs should have been dropped? Do you think the situation should have been handled differently? If so, how?
#3
Quote by CoreysMonster
I dunno, understanding what whales and dolphins think is pretty hard.
......huh?
#4
I don't think that they should have. In my opinion, the only reason they were dropped was to show Russia what the USA was capable of. Also I've heard that the Japs were close to surrender.
#6
If it hadn't been dropped, projected casualties for the Allies alone were a million. Add to that millions of Japanese soldiers and civilians and yes, I think it was justified.
#8
Quote by Scruff17
I don't think that they should have. In my opinion, the only reason they were dropped was to show Russia what the USA was capable of. Also I've heard that the Japs were close to surrender.
I don't think we'd really done much against the Japanese yet; the U.S. policy was that they would only accept an unconditional surrender, and the Japanese weren't interested.
#9
Of course they shouldn't have.
My band, Escher
My progressive rock project, Mosaic

Quote by Lappo
clearly, the goal is to convert every thread into a discussion about BTBAM

BTBAM IS ALWAYS RELEVANT
#11
I think not but then again nearly anything with German or Japanese I will side with.
(nazis excluded )

but honestly no, brute force was not necessary. Especially since its use majorly influnced the Cold War.

Side note, the dropping of the bombs was also done to basically say "haha Russia we don't need your help," thus referring to the promise made by the Russians to assist in Japan 3 months later. the date of which of the last bomb was dropped was the day before the 3rd month the Russians had promised.

So basically, America was being an arse.Bomb Drop (Iron maiden)


EDIT: I can care less about the amount of lies that were "saved" by dropping the bomb.
I would have preferred metric tons of bodies vs People killed on impact along with radioactive leftovers


2ndEdit: NUKING CIVILIANS IS ALWAYS WRONG, even if it was Iraq
People in the pit take my post way too seriously.

MyAnimeList
7-String Legion

If you have a question PM me and I will always get back to you.
Last edited by Deadlock Riff at May 21, 2010,
#12
I'd have sent Chris Rock into Japan, they'd be killing themselves quicker than an A-Bomb could.

Epiphone Les Paul Standard w/ SD Alnico Pro II's
Fender Aerodyne Telecaster & Stratocaster
Marshall JCM 800 4104 combo


E-Married to Funny_Page
#13
Quote by herby190
In my World History class, we're required to pick a side on Monday about whether or not we believe the atomic bombs should have been dropped on Japan; I was curious as to what The Pit thought of this. Do you think the atomic bombs should have been dropped? Do you think the situation should have been handled differently? If so, how?

Yes I do agree that they should have been dropped, it saved many deaths of US military happen if US took them on head on.
"Music became a healer for me. And I learned to listen with all my being. I found that it could wipe away all the emotions of fear and confusion relating to my family." Eric Clapton
#14
i think we should had cause if we didnt we would had to invade japan, and since they would fight for every square inch of land it would had been bloody, so think about it, only a couple hundred thousand died with the two bombs.. if we had the invasion... ALOT MORE would had died
#15


We go to America, we droppa two tousan bomb!
Dey comma hea, dey droppa two. Just-a two.

And no, nuking civilians is never okay.

[IN PHIL WE TRUST]


Quote by Trowzaa
I only play bots. Bots never abandon me. (´・ω・`)

Last edited by SteveHouse at May 21, 2010,
#16
Quote by CoreysMonster
I dunno, understanding what whales and dolphins think is pretty hard.

F**k you, a-whale!! And f**k a-you, dolpheeen!!!
#17
Quote by theunforgivn
i think we should had cause if we didnt we would had to invade japan

Yes, clearly the only two options available were to either invade Japan or drop an atomic bomb on them. There couldn't possibly have been any other viable course of action other than those two.
My band, Escher
My progressive rock project, Mosaic

Quote by Lappo
clearly, the goal is to convert every thread into a discussion about BTBAM

BTBAM IS ALWAYS RELEVANT
#19
Quote by theunforgivn
i think we should had cause if we didnt we would had to invade japan, and since they would fight for every square inch of land it would had been bloody, so think about it, only a couple hundred thousand died with the two bombs.. if we had the invasion... ALOT MORE would had died



The bolded part i totally agree with (minus the have to part. There were probably other options we had instead of invading. It was probably just one of the bigger choices). The underlined i do not. Those couple hundred thousand were made up of women, children, babies, etc. A lot of Innocent people were killed.

I believe that we could have dropped one in a remote location. This would have shown Japan and Russia that we had some pretty powerful weapons, and that they both needed to back off.


analedit: and by a remote location, i don't mean out in some location where neither of the countries would know about it. Drop it somewhere safe, but where they could see the destruction as well.
Sail upon the open skies
Last edited by angusfan16 at May 21, 2010,
#20
Quote by GodofCheesecake
Of course they shouldn't have.


I like statements without backing, I really do.
#21
Quote by GodofCheesecake
Well that's going to get old fast.

What, the whales and doffins? Agree.

[IN PHIL WE TRUST]


Quote by Trowzaa
I only play bots. Bots never abandon me. (´・ω・`)

#22
Quote by Scruff17
I don't think that they should have. In my opinion, the only reason they were dropped was to show Russia what the USA was capable of. Also I've heard that the Japs were close to surrender.


that's wrong. the cold war was the "war" between russia and the US, in WWII they were, you can say, on the same team. they dropped the bombs because the have defeated the germans, but the japanease won't surrender, and there was some serious killings there, so the US gov decided to drop the first bomb, but the japanease still won't surrender, so they dropped the second bomb, and THAT IS HOW THEY WON THE WAR. so I think it was a smart step to do, but it had it's influence...
#23
As a last resort, yes, I think it is justifiable, but I don't think diplomatic means were pursued heavily enough. Honestly, I think a naval blockade would likely have worked in persueding the Japanese to surender, though it would take longer. Long story short, no, all things considered, I don't think the dropping of the bomb was justified.

Though this being UG, I predict the majority of responses will be something along the lines of NO, TEH EBUL AMERIKENS DID IT SOZ ITS BAD AND TO INTIMIDATE TEH RUSSIANS AND STUFFS.
Under the spreading chestnut tree
I sold you and you sold me-
#24
Quote by webbtje
I like statements without backing, I really do.

I don't support killing thousands of civilians in particularly horrible, painful ways as well as leaving radiation in the area that will continue to affect innocents for years after the event under any circumstances.
My band, Escher
My progressive rock project, Mosaic

Quote by Lappo
clearly, the goal is to convert every thread into a discussion about BTBAM

BTBAM IS ALWAYS RELEVANT
#25
Quote by CoreysMonster
I dunno, understanding what whales and dolphins think is pretty hard.



Damn you, I wanted to say this.

But for first post
daytripper75

Bullieve


Quote by Amuro Jay
I'm gonna need specific instructions again on how to properly dance with my pants on my head.
Quote by lolmnt
First you put your pants on your head.
Second you dance.
Third you wipe off all the pussy.
#27
Quote by angusfan16
The bolded part i totally agree with (minus the have to part. There were probably other options we had instead of invading. It was probably just one of the bigger choices). The underlined i do not. Those couple hundred thousand were made up of women, children, babies, etc. A lot of Innocent people were killed.

I believe that we could have dropped one in a remote location. This would have shown Japan and Russia that we had some pretty powerful weapons, and that they both needed to back off.


analedit: and by a remote location, i don't mean out in some location where neither of the countries would know about it. Drop it somewhere safe, but where they could see the destruction as well.
This is basically what I believe. I mean, it's not like they can see everything we're doing; after the demonstration, we could claim to have them in mass production.... it's cheap, but it would save lives on both sides. Japan was die-hard, but after seeing what it can do, I don't believe even Japan would still fight.
#28
Quote by GodofCheesecake
I don't support killing thousands of civilians in particularly horrible, painful ways as well as leaving radiation in the area that will continue to affect innocents for years after the event under any circumstances.


The other alternatives were...?
#29
I think a lot of the arguments for this nuking leading to the cold war are really kinda "hindsight is 20/20". I dont think the ramifications could really have been predicted.

So overall, back then , i would have agreed to dropping the bombs but only on a military site, not civilian city.
#30
Quote by Ted K
that's wrong. the cold war was the "war" between russia and the US, in WWII they were, you can say, on the same team. they dropped the bombs because the have defeated the germans, but the japanease won't surrender, and there was some serious killings there, so the US gov decided to drop the first bomb, but the japanease still won't surrender, so they dropped the second bomb, and THAT IS HOW THEY WON THE WAR. so I think it was a smart step to do, but it had it's influence...

1. Just because the Russians were part of the Allies doesn't mean we liked each other. They were royally pissed at the rest of us for giving them no help on the Eastern front.

2. Dropping the second bomb did not win the war. Saying we had more ready to go did (which was a lie).

[IN PHIL WE TRUST]


Quote by Trowzaa
I only play bots. Bots never abandon me. (´・ω・`)

#31
Quote by Deadlock Riff
I think not but then again nearly anything with German or Japanese I will side with.
(nazis excluded )

but honestly no, brute force was not necessary. Especially since its use majorly influnced the Cold War.

Side note, the dropping of the bombs was also done to basically say "haha Russia we don't need your help," thus referring to the promise made by the Russians to assist in Japan 3 months later. the date of which of the last bomb was dropped was the day before the 3rd month the Russians had promised.

So basically, America was being an arse.Bomb Drop (Iron maiden)


EDIT: I can care less about the amount of lies that were "saved" by dropping the bomb.
I would have preferred metric tons of bodies vs People killed on impact along with radioactive leftovers


2ndEdit: NUKING CIVILIANS IS ALWAYS WRONG, even if it was Iraq


For some reason, I always thought that song was Blaze Bailey era.
Quote by MakinLattes
dwelling on past mishaps is for the weak. you must stride into the future, unabashed and prepared to fuck up yet again.
#32
Quote by webbtje
The other alternatives were...?


Cook salmon before giving sushi

btw i make awesome sushi
People in the pit take my post way too seriously.

MyAnimeList
7-String Legion

If you have a question PM me and I will always get back to you.
#33
Quote by GodofCheesecake
I don't support killing thousands of civilians in particularly horrible, painful ways as well as leaving radiation in the area that will continue to affect innocents for years after the event under any circumstances.

Even more civilians would have been killed in a ground war.

Just sayin'
#34
Quote by shmikeyboy
Even more civilians would have been killed in a ground war.

Just sayin'

Is there some way this statement can be backed up? I've seen tons of people use it, but I've never seen any evidence that it's so. Believe it or not, a lot of conventional war at the time happened in cities, but that didn't kill hundreds of thousands in two days and leave years of environmental catastrophe behind.

[IN PHIL WE TRUST]


Quote by Trowzaa
I only play bots. Bots never abandon me. (´・ω・`)

#35
Quote by Deadlock Riff
Cook salmon before giving sushi

btw i make awesome sushi


I dunno if I like the idea of radioactive salmon, be it cooked or not.
#36
Quote by webbtje
The other alternatives were...?

Several have already been mentioned by other posters. I don't remember enough from my history classes nor do I care enough about this debate to actively research the events leading up to the bombing, but I don't believe there's ever any situation in which your only option is to drop a gigantic radioactive bomb on a heavily populated city.
My band, Escher
My progressive rock project, Mosaic

Quote by Lappo
clearly, the goal is to convert every thread into a discussion about BTBAM

BTBAM IS ALWAYS RELEVANT
#37
Quote by SteveHouse
Is there some way this statement can be backed up? I've seen tons of people use it, but I've never seen any evidence that it's so. Believe it or not, a lot of conventional war at the time happened in cities, but that didn't kill hundreds of thousands in two days and leave years of environmental catastrophe behind.


Look at the numbers of civilians who died during the liberation of France and Okinawa.
Japan had also shown that if would kill civilians during defence of a city in Manila.

Nemesis by Max Hastings covers it.
#38
I'm not reading an entire book for this thread

[IN PHIL WE TRUST]


Quote by Trowzaa
I only play bots. Bots never abandon me. (´・ω・`)

#39
Quote by GodofCheesecake
Several have already been mentioned by other posters. I don't remember enough from my history classes nor do I care enough about this debate to actively research the events leading up to the bombing, but I don't believe there's ever any situation in which your only option is to drop a gigantic radioactive bomb on a heavily populated city.


Yes, and the entire debate can adequately be summed up by "Of course they shouldn't have." Black and white as that, do you reckon? Generally, 'of course' would indicate that it's an easy thing to deduce, to come to a snap conclusion of who the goodies and who the baddies were. Wee bit glib.
Page 1 of 5