70th Anniversary of Hiroshima & Nagasaki

Watch
N-R-G
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
Unprecedented horrors were unleashed on 6th August 1945. How do you feel was it necessary or was it going to far?
1
reply
Skip_Snip
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2


Such a fun song
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
(Original post by N-R-G)
Unprecedented horrors were unleashed on 6th August 1945. How do you feel was it necessary or was it going to far?
Unprecedented horrors were unleashed numerous times throughout ww2 with far more casualties being killed through conventional measures.

The debate, raised by Japanese nationalists in the 1970s attempting to white wash Japanese history, will continue to rage.

Japan was the aggressor.

Unconditional surrender was their only option which they chose not to accept.

The allied invasion of mainland Japan was expected to Cause half a million allied casualties.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

There was a belief that Japan may have released chemical and /or biological weapons against mainland United States.

Japan started it. They lost.
2
reply
VannR
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
Nuclear weapons were used as a weapon of terror to force Imperial Japan to surrender due to the overwhelming force of the enemy, and so within the context of the war, I believe that the use of nuclear weapons was justified.

However, using them on two cities which were not targets of military importance was a terrible act. If they had dropped the weapons of the coast as a kind of 'warning shot' they would have surrendered anyway - it was a freaking nuke. Perhaps if they had continued to fight afterwards using the weapon on the land would have been justified, but as it stands the bombings were very cruel.
0
reply
N-R-G
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#5
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Unprecedented horrors were unleashed numerous times throughout ww2 with far more casualties being killed through conventional measures.

The debate, raised by Japanese nationalists in the 1970s attempting to white wash Japanese history, will continue to rage.

Japan was the aggressor.

Unconditional surrender was their only option which they chose not to accept.

The allied invasion of mainland Japan was expected to Cause half a million allied casualties.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

There was a belief that Japan may have released chemical and /or biological weapons against mainland United States.

Japan started it. They lost.

The pain and suffering caused by the nuclear bomb and its aftermath was unprecedented.

I'm not saying the Japanese were innocent though going through the atrocities case by case the civilians who died from radiation died in a horrible way.
0
reply
N-R-G
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#6
Should multilateral nuclear disarmament be put into practice?
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
(Original post by N-R-G)
The pain and suffering caused by the nuclear bomb and its aftermath was unprecedented.

I'm not saying the Japanese were innocent though going through the atrocities case by case the civilians who died from radiation died in a horrible way.
The pain and suffering was unprecedented. What was unprecedented was the fact that one aircraft could deliver such explosive power.
Watch this documentary and Robert macnamara talks quite candidly about the A bombs being used on Japan.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fog_of_War

Conventional bombing raids were causing similar levels of damage and casualties.
0
reply
solid snake :)
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
Nobody should deliberately kill the civilians

That is just bad and messed up

Posted from TSR Mobile
1
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
(Original post by N-R-G)
Should multilateral nuclear disarmament be put into practice?
Pointless.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
(Original post by solid snake :))
Nobody should deliberately kill the civilians

That is just bad and messed up

Posted from TSR Mobile
Even if it keeps your own military alive.

The invasion of Okinawa a few weeks earlier demonstrated that Japanese civilians acted like military personnel.
0
reply
Fango_Jett
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
A very unfortunate way to end the war, but it would have taken a lot more lives and a caused lot more suffering on both sides if the war had dragged on to the point of an invasion of Japan.
1
reply
thunder_chunky
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
Horrible, but necessary. That's just the way it is.

(Original post by solid snake :))
Nobody should deliberately kill the civilians

That is just bad and messed up

Posted from TSR Mobile
I suppose you have a better idea for how the war could have been ended swiftly with minimum casualties.
0
reply
GnomeMage
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
(Original post by VannR)
Nuclear weapons were used as a weapon of terror to force Imperial Japan to surrender due to the overwhelming force of the enemy, and so within the context of the war, I believe that the use of nuclear weapons was justified.

However, using them on two cities which were not targets of military importance was a terrible act. If they had dropped the weapons of the coast as a kind of 'warning shot' they would have surrendered anyway - it was a freaking nuke. Perhaps if they had continued to fight afterwards using the weapon on the land would have been justified, but as it stands the bombings were very cruel.
Where's your brain? The first bomb went down. Many died and they still didn't surrender making way for the second bomb. What makes you think a warning shot would make them surrender?

BTW neither of the atom bombs made Japan surrender. Japan surrendered because soviet declared war.
1
reply
Aj12
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
Japan needs to drop the victim complex they have created since the the bombings. They refused to surrender and whilst they were making some peace feelers before the bombing I'm not convinced they would amount t to anything. They did not surrender after the first bomb and some of the military wanted to carry on regardless of the cost.

No doubt there was a desire to test thr bomb to scare the Soviets but I believe the main aim was to end the war. It was the right decision.


Posted from TSR Mobile
1
reply
Maker
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
Only 2 bombs, they got off lightly.
0
reply
Fango_Jett
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
I feel as though this recent reaction is being grossly engineered through the western PC guilt conscience that is rampant. Japan has moved on, and don't want to drudge up animosity from 70 years ago.

The Americans could have done much worse and could have bombed, say Tokyo and Kyoto, which would have crippled Japan for decades upon decades.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#17
Report 5 years ago
#17
Anybody else finding our resident anti semetic troll is making them more pro Israeli and Jewish?
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
(Original post by Fango_Jett)
I feel as though this recent reaction is being grossly engineered through the western PC guilt conscience that is rampant. Japan has moved on, and don't want to drudge up animosity from 70 years ago.

The Americans could have done much worse and could have bombed, say Tokyo and Kyoto, which would have crippled Japan for decades upon decades.
Tokyo and Kyoto had already been flattened by conventional bombing.

I often wonder had Japan managed to develop their bomb first and used it then their liberals would be apologising.
0
reply
Fango_Jett
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#19
Report 5 years ago
#19
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Tokyo and Kyoto had already been flattened by conventional bombing.

I often wonder had Japan managed to develop their bomb first and used it then their liberals would be apologising.
Tokyo was bombed pretty well, but it certainly wasn't decimated the way other parts of Japan were. Kyoto didn't have much going on for it at all. There were a few bombings here and there, but it was relatively untouched, as evidenced by the huge number of pre-war buildings present.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#20
Report 5 years ago
#20
(Original post by Fango_Jett)
Tokyo was bombed pretty well, but it certainly wasn't decimated the way other parts of Japan were. Kyoto didn't have much going on for it at all. There were a few bombings here and there, but it was relatively untouched, as evidenced by the huge number of pre-war buildings present.
tokyo had pretty much been decimated.

As for Kyoto, there were two bombs and multiple targets to pick from.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Do you have the space and resources you need to succeed in home learning?

Yes I have everything I need (292)
56.05%
I don't have everything I need (229)
43.95%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed