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

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

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hamesh)
    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.
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...4&postcount=45
    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!
    I'm not sure of this, but didn't America actually help Saddam Hussein when it suited them? I.e. attacking Iran. But when Saddam refused to co-operate with america they decided to go to war against him?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hash007)
    I'm not sure of this, but didn't America actually help Saddam Hussein when it suited them? I.e. attacking Iran. But when Saddam refused to co-operate with america they decided to go to war against him?

    The first part is correct to an extent. The Ayatollah had just overthrown the the Pro American Shah in the revolution.

    I am not sure the Americans completely supported Saddam. I think they saw he was a bit crazy, but the alternative of a Islamic Dictatorship controlling the vast oil reserves and at such a strategic point in the Gulf was far more dangerous.



    The Americans were only prepared to go to War with Saddam because he threatened the Saudi Arabian Oil reserves. The Iraqi army was far superior to the Saudi one. IF Saddam had not taken Kuwait City, then it is unlikely that anything would have happened.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hash007)
    I'm not sure of this, but didn't America actually help Saddam Hussein when it suited them? I.e. attacking Iran. But when Saddam refused to co-operate with america they decided to go to war against him?
    They funded him and possibly supplied weapons until the early 90's. In their defence they did decide to abandon funds when he decided to attack Kuwait purely because they didn't want to risk losing oil. I wonder if they would invade Saudi Arabia, or raise their lack of respect for human rights if they decided to keep their oil, or trade exclusively with China.
    If Blair hadn't been such a lapdog then it would have just been a unilateral attack by America in 2003, we wouldn't have been blemished with their lack of respect for the UN. There's little question they would have invaded with or without our support.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Komakino)
    They funded him and possibly supplied weapons until the early 90's. In their defence they did decide to abandon funds when he decided to attack Kuwait purely because they didn't want to risk losing oil. I wonder if they would invade Saudi Arabia, or raise their lack of respect for human rights if they decided to keep their oil, or trade exclusively with China.
    America did supply weapons, mainly through third parties. So it is harder to assess exactly how much. However, the Soviets supplied the most.

    In fact one of the reasons why Saddam invaded Kuwait was because he owed them a vast amount of money that he couldn't pay back.


    (Original post by Komakino)
    If Blair hadn't been such a lapdog then it would have just been a unilateral attack by America in 2003, we wouldn't have been blemished with their lack of respect for the UN. There's little question they would have invaded with or without our support.
    I don't believe that Blair was a lapdog. In fact, I believe he is the one who convinced Bush to go to war and the greatest proponent of Neo Conservatism throughout the late 90's.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    America did supply weapons, mainly through third parties. So it is harder to assess exactly how much. However, the Soviets supplied the most.

    In fact one of the reasons why Saddam invaded Kuwait was because he owed them a vast amount of money that he couldn't pay back.




    I don't believe that Blair was a lapdog. In fact, I believe he is the one who convinced Bush to go to war and the greatest proponent of Neo Conservatism throughout the late 90's.
    That's a hell of a claim and all of the evidence suggest Bush leaned on Blair and that Bush was ready to go to war before Blair had even consulted his cabinet.
    Regardless of the sequence of events, it is a fact that Blair misled a large number of cabinet members and either wittingly or due to incompetence lied to the general public.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Komakino)
    Targeted bombing, surely they had the technology. It may have been a long time ago, but I don't see why couldn't have carried out targeted bombing with low flying aircraft.
    You said yourself, they knew the areas were densely populated with civilians and yet they still carried out the nuclear attack. How is this not a warcrime, a genocide even? Perhaps it isn't the latter, but only in specifics; because the laws are different in times of war.
    It sounds like you're judging acts of the world wars based on the way wars are conducted today and that's pretty stupid. The wars we see today are mostly against individual groups within countries as opposed to a whole country.

    And yes they knew it was densely populated (as well as having industrial and military significance). That's one of the reasons it made a good target plus other cities (and countless people killed) were razed by campaigns of carpet bombing, why don't you mention these? Like I said the death toll from the bombs makes up a tiny, tiny minority of the total 70 million or so. Do you also think the British should be put on trial for genocide and war crimes for killing some 90,000~ in strategic bombing campaigns?

    It wasn't like the whole world were trying to minimize civilian casualties while America didn't give a **** and dropped bombs wherever. The whole world was at war... anything was fair game. I'm guessing pretty much every side that fought in both world wars couldn't give two ****s about killing civilians so it's pretty ****ty to single out America.

    Also assuming America never dropped those bombs there would obviously be some country down the line wanting to claim the title of "first to use a nuclear bomb in combat". Better the bombs in those days as opposed to the **** that's been developed right? The Tsar Bomba developed some 5 years after the war concluded had 1400 times the power of those used in Japan. The bombings showed the world how horrifying and destructive these weapons can be and they prompted Japan to adopt a no nukes policy and most likely influenced the way the world views nuclear warfare today.

    And don't assume America were the only ones willing to do that when capable. A lot of the countries were in an arms race.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thisisnew)
    It sounds like you're judging acts of the world wars based on the way wars are conducted today and that's pretty stupid. The wars we see today are mostly against individual groups within countries as opposed to a whole country.


    No, not really. The International Standards that were applied to those in the Second World War are really the same international standards that are applied today. I believe they are largely based upon the Just War theory provided by Aquinas.


    So your claim that the Second World War requires special treatment is not one reflected in reality.


    (Original post by thisisnew)
    And yes they knew it was densely populated (as well as having industrial and military significance). That's one of the reasons it made a good target plus other cities (and countless people killed) were razed by campaigns of carpet bombing, why don't you mention these? Like I said the death toll from the bombs makes up a tiny, tiny minority of the total 70 million or so. Do you also think the British should be put on trial for genocide and war crimes for killing some 90,000~ in strategic bombing campaigns?
    There was no industrial or military significance to the atomic bombs.

    Considering that Japan was already defeated by that point and depended heavily upon imports to maintain their industry, there was little they could do with their factories that would prove to be a threat to the Allies.

    Neither am I sure, what your point is regarding carpet bombing. The fire bombing of cities is irrelevant to the issue of the atomic bombings. One does not negate or justify the other.



    (Original post by thisisnew)


    It wasn't like the whole world were trying to minimize civilian casualties while America didn't give a **** and dropped bombs wherever. The whole world was at war... anything was fair game. I'm guessing pretty much every side that fought in both world wars couldn't give two ****s about killing civilians so it's pretty ****ty to single out America.
    So your justification is that since the rest of the world couldn't be bothered to reduce civilian atrocities then the Americans shouldn't either. :rolleyes:

    I cannot be bothered to read on.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Komakino)
    That's a hell of a claim and all of the evidence suggest Bush leaned on Blair and that Bush was ready to go to war before Blair had even consulted his cabinet.
    Regardless of the sequence of events, it is a fact that Blair misled a large number of cabinet members and either wittingly or due to incompetence lied to the general public.
    I agree with you. The Americans were ready to go to war without Britain.

    However, that doesn't mean that Blair didn't hold any influence. He went to war because he believed it was the right thing to do. Not really because he wished to follow America.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    I agree with you. The Americans were ready to go to war without Britain.

    However, that doesn't mean that Blair didn't hold any influence. He went to war because he believed it was the right thing to do. Not really because he wished to follow America.
    Blair went to war 3 times in his first 6 years (Siera Lione too), Bush went to war 2 times in his first 3 years, they are both blood thirsty.

    In regards to the thread subject, America won and history is always leaned upon by the victors (hence the freeing Japanese citizens point), nobody could oppose them at the time, and the top 4 economies were Japan, US, UK and Germany, thus Japan moved on.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Because they're Americans, but hey don't waste your time on this, there are still some families of the 9/11 'victims' that we're supposed to feel sorry for.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sani-Insanity)
    Just wondering
    I do not know but thank you for asking this cos I am wondering too.

    I watched a documentary the other day about it and this guy he went to Hiroshima and there is like a shadow on the floor that was of someone that was standing there when nuclear bomb explode. Apparently it was sooooooo powerful that people just kind of die suddenly and their shadow is still there.... Quite scary,,,,
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Because no country was stupid enough to put idea of rightouness and justice against a country who could and was willing to kill millions of people at the click of a button. The whole point of the droping of the booms was to intemindate the russains and tell the world that the US takes no **** .
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    I believe they are largely based upon the Just War theory provided by Aquinas.
    there is no such thing as a "just" war.

    the nature of total war is that ultimately when the cards are on the table you will do anything to defeat the enemy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ExcessNeo)
    Because they setup Dolphin and Whale with this doctored image

    When in fact it was a chicken...and a cow! :holmes:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by warrenpenalver)
    there is no such thing as a "just" war.

    the nature of total war is that ultimately when the cards are on the table you will do anything to defeat the enemy.
    I am not sure what that has to do with what I said.

    I said that the International Law that is applied today to govern standards in war was also used back then.

    It has nothing to do with whether it should be applied or not.
    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.
    Those who lived throught it, still have great resentment......

    japan has become pretty americanised and the love of this culture with the young generation is all they know.....
    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.
    yeah good point. A bit like how the iraqis and afghans are forever in gratitude to the americans and british for getting rid of their evil dictators. Im at a loss as to why the brits left iraq underdarkness...... why didn' they stay for the leaving party?
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by warrenpenalver)
    there is no such thing as a "just" war.

    the nature of total war is that ultimately when the cards are on the table you will do anything to defeat the enemy.
    I agree, there is no justifiable reason for war.

    On the other hand, i do agree with the almightly Shwartanager in Terminator 2, "It is in your nature to destroy yourselves".

    At its core, the human race is agressive, devious and brutal and we constantly prove it. The strong survive and the weak die, it happens in business and it happens in nature, and other than a few socialists, the majority of us embrace it!
    • Offline

      18
      (Original post by Sani-Insanity)
      Just wondering
      Because they were at war
      Because at the time there was no treaty/issue with nuclear weapons


      THe thing people forget is far more died during the fire bombing of tokyo
     
     
     
  1. 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.

  2. Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  3. 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.

  4. 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.