Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

What is your view on America using the most dangerous nucleur atomic bomb? Watch

  • View Poll Results: My view
    It was fine, america has media influence, money power
    8
    42.11%
    It was clearly morally wrong. i am too intelligent to believe that crap
    11
    57.89%

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sixthformer)
    Britain does not still do slaves
    and germany now is so multi cultural and diverse.
    but america sitll go kill iraqi's , and have killed millions
    what an amazing passport.
    kill all you like , you have the power, don't worry, no-one can blame you,
    what a utter paradox
    the one that will restore peace is coming.
    lol...and any opressive forces won't really survive.
    i can bet my life on it.
    Britain played an important role in the Iraq war and Germany also has it's defaults plus with a past equally as horrible as the US.

    To me this thread is just a reason to fuel your hate for the US with no want to look at the facts
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Cornerstone)
    Britain played an important role in the Iraq war and Germany also has it's defaults plus with a past equally as horrible as the US.

    To me this thread is just a reason to fuel your hate for the US with no want to look at the facts
    ok, the us wins
    forget the millions brutaly murdered for oil, and for greed
    =) please now vote, the us has money, media, influence and power
    thank you
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    The Americans will never be able to justify the nuclear bombings.

    90,000–166,000 killed in Hiroshima
    60,000–80,000 killed in Nagasak

    Not to mention the effects radiation has had on generation of people in Japan.

    Yes, the Japanese treated the americans like dogs. They were amazingly brutal to every country they invaded, and killed far, far to many innocent civi's them selves.
    And their treatment of POWs is beyond belief....
    Only a fool would say the Japanese were innocent.

    But Japan was on its knee's as it was. Typical American attitude if you ask me...
    No, a full scale invasion of Japan would not have worked.
    But Japan was on its knees. Running out of everything, most importantly oil.
    They were taking a beating in China, and just about everywhere else.

    Would it not have been easier to blockade the Japanese? American naval power was far greater during the end of the war...
    Destroy any oil, food, anything else that goes into Japan.
    That would have caused a revolt within Japan, and the goverment/monarchy would have been overthrown. Surrender would have come.


    But the americans chose to drop the two most powerful wepons ever made (at the time), on two very populated cities. Yes, they both had very large military presence. But there was still no justification to do it. If the americans got their planning right, and did starve japan of everything it needed. In my mind the war would have not lasted any longer. But they didn't, like always. They decided to go guns hoe, and destroy everything. Sums up the american ethos.

    Pearl harbour was a disgrace. But atleast the japanese were orderly, and attacked military assets.
    Two of the largest cities in japan, should not have been classed as military assets.

    The fact that Hiroshima refused to surrender after well over 100,000 citizens had been killed, sums the whole thing up if you ask me.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by milkytea)
    The danger with nuclear disarmament being that if a rogue state develops nuclear weapons (North Korea being a good example), suddenly they have hegemony over all non-nuclear nations. So I don't agree with the CND point of view, it's too idealistic. We should, of course, never use the things except for in the direst of circumstances.

    I think it's relatively safe to trust a modern democracy with nuclear weapons.
    This.

    Once something has been invented it is impossible to uninvent it, all that remains is creating something that renders it useless.




    OP, you're a goon. Useless thread, not biased in the slightest :rolleyes: and you deserve you idiot/troll/pathetic tag.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lonelykatana)
    The Americans will never be able to justify the nuclear bombings.

    90,000–166,000 killed in Hiroshima
    60,000–80,000 killed in Nagasak

    Not to mention the effects radiation has had on generation of people in Japan.

    Yes, the Japanese treated the americans like dogs. They were amazingly brutal to every country they invaded, and killed far, far to many innocent civi's them selves.
    And their treatment of POWs is beyond belief....
    Only a fool would say the Japanese were innocent.

    But Japan was on its knee's as it was. Typical American attitude if you ask me...
    No, a full scale invasion of Japan would not have worked.
    But Japan was on its knees. Running out of everything, most importantly oil.
    They were taking a beating in China, and just about everywhere else.

    Would it not have been easier to blockade the Japanese? American naval power was far greater during the end of the war...
    Destroy any oil, food, anything else that goes into Japan.
    That would have caused a revolt within Japan, and the goverment/monarchy would have been overthrown. Surrender would have come.


    But the americans chose to drop the two most powerful wepons ever made (at the time), on two very populated cities. Yes, they both had very large military presence. But there was still no justification to do it. If the americans got their planning right, and did starve japan of everything it needed. In my mind the war would have not lasted any longer. But they didn't, like always. They decided to go guns hoe, and destroy everything. Sums up the american ethos.

    Pearl harbour was a disgrace. But atleast the japanese were orderly, and attacked military assets.
    Two of the largest cities in japan, should not have been classed as military assets.

    The fact that Hiroshima refused to surrender after well over 100,000 citizens had been killed, sums the whole thing up if you ask me.
    Just to add, I think you're incorrect in saying the American's have influence, money and power.
    It might have influence over a lot of Europe, but slowly many countries are becoming less and less happy to follow what the americans want.
    Its about time we did too.

    America is at an all time low, weaker than ever.
    China is the real world power now. China has the ability to cripple the American economy is a matter of months.
    Not to mention the ever increasing quality of their armed forces.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lonelykatana)
    there was still no justification to do it
    Almost right. There is no - and can be no - good explanation for it, but there are plenty of reasons that come after that.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lonelykatana)
    Would it not have been easier to blockade the Japanese? American naval power was far greater during the end of the war...
    Destroy any oil, food, anything else that goes into Japan.
    That would have caused a revolt within Japan, and the goverment/monarchy would have been overthrown. Surrender would have come.
    You seem to think that blockade is a quick zero-fatality option...... How long did the UK survive with Germany trying to block the atlantic trade routes? How many people would die from starvation before the Japanese gave in? Do you understand the psychology of the Imperial Japanese or their population?

    Consider that before this on Okinawa the Japanese army forced civilians to kill themselves in order to stop them being captured by the US forces and that they did not surrender even when the outcome was "inevitable". Also, who would be revolting? At the time almost all men of military age were in the army fighting (with the army's "no surrender" credo) - the army was around 6 million strong in August 1945, and there was a 26 million strong "militia" force similar to the UK "dad's army".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If they had dropped the bombs over France, nobody would have complained.

    ...nobody likes France...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gingerbreadman85)
    You seem to think that blockade is a quick zero-fatality option...... How long did the UK survive with Germany trying to block the atlantic trade routes? How many people would die from starvation before the Japanese gave in? Do you understand the psychology of the Imperial Japanese or their population?

    Consider that before this on Okinawa the Japanese army forced civilians to kill themselves in order to stop them being captured by the US forces and that they did not surrender even when the outcome was "inevitable". Also, who would be revolting? At the time almost all men of military age were in the army fighting (with the army's "no surrender" credo) - the army was around 6 million strong in August 1945, and there was a 26 million strong "militia" force similar to the UK "dad's army".

    All fair points.
    A blockade would have undoubtedly cost many lives. But in the end I believe it would have been less costly.

    The Japanese might have a mentality of honour, and no surrender. But when mass starvation becomes a reality, I highly doubt they would want to do anything but overthrow their leaders.
    They do have a bit of a history of revolt
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lonelykatana)
    All fair points.
    A blockade would have undoubtedly cost many lives. But in the end I believe it would have been less costly.

    The Japanese might have a mentality of honour, and no surrender. But when mass starvation becomes a reality, I highly doubt they would want to do anything but overthrow their leaders.
    They do have a bit of a history of revolt
    I am really interested to know what you base these beliefs on.......

    The cult of the Emperor can be related to something like the Waco Texas cult. He was seen as divinely inspired and infalible, something reinforced by the propaganda and misinformation about military defeats.

    You also forget that the blockade was what STARTED the war in the first place, and that the Japanese home islands had been under blockade of some form or other since 1941. Around 90% of the Japanese merchant ships were sunk. Their response to lack of fuel was to send their ships and planes on "one way trips". Blockade didn't work on Iwo Jima or Okinawa either, even when the food ran low. How many million Japanese on the home islands would die because of malnutrition?

    If you were a military planner, faced with an option that would drag out the war for months or years (if not indefinitely), and one that might force Japan to the peace table, what would you chose. Heck, if you were a US citizen, tired of 4 and a half years of war, what would you chose? That a continued blockade would force Japan to surrender in the same period of time is a pipe dream of epic proportions.

    The ability to go back and disassemble the situations and say "what should have been done" is a wonderful benefit of hindsight. It is easy for us to say they should have done x or y without having to have lived through the circumstances of the time, or understanding the psychology of the individuals.

    War is not nice. Or moral. Parts of it can be legitimately seen as reprehensible and worthy of punishment. However for, in a war where civilians were seen as fair game for strategic bombing, a country to use a devastating weapon against a civilian population, is not nice, or compassionate or anything approaching an ideal answer. However you aren't in the position to say that it is wrong.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The Japanese government refused to surrender. That means they would have kept on fighting regardless of how little rice they had! They were used to suffering hardships, western countries would dream unimaginable. The japanese people would never had revolted against the "devine " emperor also having been under a fascist government for 10 years they'd forgotten how. If they ever knew in the first place.

    The amount of lives lost had the Americans invaded Japan would have gone into the millions. No japanese soldier or indeed would have surrundered in the defence of their homeland. Okinawa was evidence of that.

    The civilian population would have sacrificed themselves, the whole country would have fought.

    Also you go on about the Nuclear bomb killing lots of civilians. You should be focusing on the fire bombing of Tokyo by Le May which killed far more civilians that two nuclear bombs.

    The dropping of the Atomic bomb saved American, British and Japanese lives.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sixthformer)
    ...
    That entire post was an insult to the English language
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 23, 2010
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.