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

Why did America get away with bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Watch

    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Much as I do not want to admit it various evidence such as Jap Diplomatic cables say that Japan were willing to surrender.

    Tbh a better course of action and one that was considered was to detonate the bomb on an uninhabited island this would show the soviets the power of the bomb which arguably the main reason for the use of the atomic bomb.
    Well at least we can agree on something!

    (Original post by CombineHarvester)
    My post from the older thread:




    Surprised no-one has said this yet.
    Have a read of my post, it's a big read to get through most of it, but it's quite enlightening.

    (Original post by Drewski)
    No, they shouldn't.


    Stop being ridiculous. We have no more right or ability to hold the US Government to account for the actions of those that went before them [some 70yrs before them] than we have the right to chastise the modern German Government for the Holocaust, the Mongolians for Genghis Khan, the Macedonians for Alexander the Great or Berlusconi for the Romans.
    Times change from the era of mass slaughter of civilians. It's not the 11th century, you know.
    Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    It's not unfortunate. It is called reality!
    The fact that it's a reality not only makes it unfortunate but extremely depressing. Just makes you wonder how much worse the world can get.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sani-Insanity)
    It's unfortunate that the world has become so messed up that lives need to be taken in order for lives to be saved.
    What do you mean 'become'?
    It has always been like that.......
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Firstly, because its America. For some odd reason everything else any other non-American ally does wrong (doesn't have to be a strong enemy), they have to be apologetic and on the defensive. Yet, are very cautious with our criticism about the US and its powerful allies; pointing fingers at them only when we are certain that they have done something worse than their enemies. only then do we dare to blame them.

    At least Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings took place during war. What about the Iranian civilian passenger plane that the US fired down (accidentally) apparently, for which it has to this day, refused to apologize? - That's just one other example that comes to mind right now since I was reading about it recently, I know for sure there are hundreds of other similar incidents.

    Every press statement released on that incident- the US simply asserts, very aggressively, that firing the missile was the right decision given the circumstances and information available to them at the time. For argument's sake, even if we do buy that crap, why is it so difficult to apologise?

    Also for some other odd reason its more important to demonise + condemn Ahmadinejad for denying the Holocaust...even though thats not taking anyone's lives atm or make him responsible for the Holocaust. Its like SO unreasonable to expect the US to apologise for killing over a hundred civilians for their incompetence/gross negligence!

    They've set clear double standards throughout history and continue to blatantly do so even today. Most of us have subconsciously accepted it as normal and the way things are apart from the occasional epiphanies. This acceptance is the main reason why America in the past/present gets away with the most horrendous crimes it commits.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by channy)
    Well at least we can agree on something!



    Have a read of my post, it's a big read to get through most of it, but it's quite enlightening.



    Times change from the era of mass slaughter of civilians. It's not the 11th century, you know.
    Yes, I think others in this thread (and the older thread) would benefit from reading that material. I've found that people who haven't studied the event in depth tend to tag along with the US government's story of why it occurred. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were untouched before the bombs dropped so after the bombings (still the only time nuclear weaponry has been used in war) the whole world could see the complete, unadulterated level of death and destruction which occurred as a result of nuclear bombs and that the US were willing to use them given the opportunity. The opportunity was available to them because they were the only state to possess such weapons so there was no risk of a return attack of similar proportions (especially as they claimed they had far more nuclear weapons in stock ready to use). As you highlighted in that post, it had zero effect on Japan's decision to surrender but it would look good for both the US and Japan to claim as such.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    America can get away with anything.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Political spin probably.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Because the winners write the history.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    It's people like you that would have left Saddam Hussein to gas more Kurds.
    That's surprising, are you the user that was defending the use of white phosphorus on civilian population? Mmmh...
    • Offline

      16
      (Original post by slawaccess23)
      That's surprising, are you the user that was defending the use of white phosphorus on civilian population? Mmmh...
      No.

      What is your next stupid question?
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
      You f*ing moron!

      It's people like you that would have left Saddam Hussein to gas more Kurds. You'd probably oppose an intervention to prevent the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Kosovo. You need help!
      Why do the congress have inquires about it then?

      What about all of the white people that got kicked off their land in Zimbabwe?
      What about all of the Mao Zedong Killed (more then Stalin)?
      Or did they not matter as much?


      The truth is it was none of their business.
      • Offline

        16
        (Original post by No Man)
        Why do the congress have inquires about it then?

        What about all of the white people that got kicked off their land in Zimbabwe?
        What about all of the Mao Zedong Killed (more then Stalin)?
        Or did they not matter as much?


        The truth is it was none of their business.
        What are you talking about? You would have clearly opposed the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. I think your silence establishes that.

        Why are you listing other questions to me? Do you think I am some government spokesman? Do you think by asking me questions you can hopefully avoid answering those questions?
        Offline

        1
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by NothingCrushesUs)
        This is so stupid. Speak to any Japanese person, and you won't find a single bit of resentment in them. If they can get over it, why can't the stupid extreme left wing everywhere else get over it?!
        An explanation for the neg would be nice x4 -__-
        Offline

        2
        ReputationRep:
        Well, as far as i know The Japanese people were willing to fight till the last man, so if the USA invaded mainland Japan, casualties would have been enourmous, not to mention the war would have lasted at least another 2-5 years due to lack of supplies, insufficient quantity of provisions and troops. Also because popularity for the war was fading.

        Other reasons include the fact that the long term effects of contact with radioactive material, were not yet known. So the US assumed that it was just a regular bomb, that made a huge explosion. Though the effects were quickly noted after the first detination, and US scientists knew the effects. Maybe it was the government using ignorance as an excuse.

        The US also used the atomic bomb as a warning to its allies, because the US would emerge as the leading superpower from the war, due to its infrastructure being intact, and Europe was devestated as it was completely flattened. This is really where the US became rich and powerfull.
        Offline

        2
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
        What are you talking about? You would have clearly opposed the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. I think your silence establishes that.

        Why are you listing other questions to me? Do you think I am some government spokesman? Do you think by asking me questions you can hopefully avoid answering those questions?
        I am listing other ****ed up things that have happened in the world, but America didn't decide to intervene, so what makes Iraq any different. You can't say the situation in Iraq is better off now that they're having a civil war anyway.
        • Offline

          16
          (Original post by No Man)
          I am listing other ****ed up things that have happened in the world, but America didn't decide to intervene, so what makes Iraq any different. You can't say the situation in Iraq is better off now that they're having a civil war anyway.
          Really? You actually think things were better under Saddam? You're probably opposed to the idea that Iraq can vote in presidents? You're probably opposed to the free speech the country has enjoyed once more? You're probably opposed to the ban on torture and executions? You probably regard it as wonderful that thousands of Iraqis were banned from ever entering their own country? And what about the 300,000 people he murdered? They're probably deserved it, right?

          You come across as so confused! According to you we ought not intervene because there are worse out there. For starters, I'd like to see you argue that anyone was on par with Saddam. The only person I know to have also committed mass-execution by gassing his own people was Hitler. You'd probably oppose any intervention to get rid of him too? And why? Because there are worse out there.

          How about this for a response:

          What amazes me is how many people are happy for Saddam to stay. They ask why we don't get rid of Mugabe, why not the Burmese lot. Yes, let's get rid of them all. I don't because I can't, but when you can you should.
          - Tony Blair

          Anyway, I don't have it in me to argue with those who stand on the side of Saddam Hussein.
          Offline

          0
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Orihime)
          Do you play WoW or something?
          No, im afraid that i lost my virginity a long time ago. Im therefore not eligable to play wow.
          Offline

          1
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by NothingCrushesUs)
          This is so stupid. Speak to any Japanese person, and you won't find a single bit of resentment in them. If they can get over it, why can't the stupid extreme left wing everywhere else get over it?!


          edit. Firstly, why the neg if you're not going to give me your opinion? I'll explain what I know as fact a bit more clearly for you, just so that you understand ^_^

          In Japan, nobody likes the stance they took during WWII. The same way that Germans HATE nazis, and don't even think of themselves as being descendants of them. Thus, in Japan, people are of the opinion that anything that helped them get away from the brain-washed state that they were, and closer to the major world power and cultural paradise that they are now, is and was a good thing.

          Now your turn.

          Just thought I'd quote myself so that people only reading the end of the thread are on the receiving end of what I've said.
          Offline

          2
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
          Really? You actually think things were better under Saddam? You're probably opposed to the idea that Iraq can vote in presidents? You're probably opposed to the free speech the country has enjoyed once more? You're probably opposed to the ban on torture and executions? You probably regard it as wonderful that thousands of Iraqis were banned from ever entering their own country? And what about the 300,000 people he murdered? They're probably deserved it, right?

          You come across as so confused! According to you we ought not intervene because there are worse out there. For starters, I'd like to see you argue that anyone was on par with Saddam. The only person I know to have also committed mass-execution by gassing his own people was Hitler. You'd probably oppose any intervention to get rid of him too? And why? Because there are worse out there.

          How about this for a response:

          What amazes me is how many people are happy for Saddam to stay. They ask why we don't get rid of Mugabe, why not the Burmese lot. Yes, let's get rid of them all. I don't because I can't, but when you can you should.
          - Tony Blair

          Anyway, I don't have it in me to argue with those who stand on the side of Saddam Hussein.
          Iraq isn't any better now then it was when Saddam was in charge, because people are going to be killed there now anyway because they're having a civil war.

          300,000 is nothing compared to the 15 million that Mao Zedong killed, or the 30 million Stalin killed, but they aren't regarded to be as bad as Sadam or Hitler.

          I'm not saying America should not intervene at all, I'm saying they shouldn't pick and choose things to fight against if it has nothing to do with them. The whole Iraq invasion was because of 9/11, which Iraq didn't even plan.
          Offline

          0
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by CombineHarvester)
          Yes, I think others in this thread (and the older thread) would benefit from reading that material. I've found that people who haven't studied the event in depth tend to tag along with the US government's story of why it occurred. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were untouched before the bombs dropped so after the bombings (still the only time nuclear weaponry has been used in war) the whole world could see the complete, unadulterated level of death and destruction which occurred as a result of nuclear bombs and that the US were willing to use them given the opportunity. The opportunity was available to them because they were the only state to possess such weapons so there was no risk of a return attack of similar proportions (especially as they claimed they had far more nuclear weapons in stock ready to use). As you highlighted in that post, it had zero effect on Japan's decision to surrender but it would look good for both the US and Japan to claim as such.

          Could you please direct me towards that material?

          I'd like to add the paranomic view of Hiroshima aftermath. I don't know if anyone has already done this on this thread:

          http://i.imgur.com/Ii7dE.jpg

          You'll be in shock at the extent of damage.
         
         
         
      • 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.

      • Poll
        What newspaper do you read/prefer?
        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.