World War II : The Atomic Bombs

Do any of you have thoughts on their use?
I disagree with using them, they killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and permanently made two cities radioactive. Not only that, but now the radioactivity is spreading.
Do you guys think they should have used them?

Nimrodel wrote:

Do any of you have thoughts on their use?
I disagree with using them, they killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and permanently made two cities radioactive. Not only that, but now the radioactivity is spreading.
Do you guys think they should have used them?

.
Hmmm...I agree it had to be done,but I dont think that 2 bombs were necessary.

I agree.One would have made a strong enough statement to say'This is what will happen if you don't surrender'.

Did the Soviet Union ever bomb Germany that way? America had no right to unleash Nuclear Bombs, and then ban Nuclear Bomb Use. Seriously, I hate Truman. The Mudak took German V1, V2, and V3 bombs from the Soviet Union, when it rightfully belonged to us.

SovietSoldier wrote:

Did the Soviet Union ever bomb Germany that way?

Hell, if the Soviet Union had an atom bomb, Stalin would have dropped that on Berlin faster than you could say "Crazy uncle Joe-." Then again, Germany wanted a bomb, infact they planned to jam it in a missile and blow up the US along with everbody that got in his way.

Quote :

I agree.One would have made a strong enough statement to say'This is what will happen if you don't surrender'.

You have to understand that America wanted revenge. "They attacked us, well will attack 'em twice as bad."

Hans Klein wrote:

SovietSoldier wrote:

Did the Soviet Union ever bomb Germany that way?

Hell, if the Soviet Union had an atom bomb, Stalin would have dropped that on Berlin faster than you could say "Crazy uncle Joe-." Then again, Germany wanted a bomb, infact they planned to jam it in a missile and blow up the US along with everbody that got in his way.

Quote :

I agree.One would have made a strong enough statement to say'This is what will happen if you don't surrender'.

You have to understand that America wanted revenge. "They attacked us, well will attack 'em twice as bad."

The Germans were actually the first to begin building a Nuclear Bomb.

SovietSoldier wrote:

Hans Klein wrote:

SovietSoldier wrote:

Did the Soviet Union ever bomb Germany that way?

Hell, if the Soviet Union had an atom bomb, Stalin would have dropped that on Berlin faster than you could say "Crazy uncle Joe-." Then again, Germany wanted a bomb, infact they planned to jam it in a missile and blow up the US along with everbody that got in his way.

Quote :

I agree.One would have made a strong enough statement to say'This is what will happen if you don't surrender'.

You have to understand that America wanted revenge. "They attacked us, well will attack 'em twice as bad."

The Germans were actually the first to begin building a Nuclear Bomb.

The V2.....

I believe the V2 were just long ranged terror rockets. Nothing compared to the Atomic Bomb. We knew that Germany was developing the weapon. It was only a matter of time before they had it and used it against the Allies, followed by a dominantly STG44/MG42 equipped charging army.

Very scary scenario/

This is my answer from TWT on this question:


As terrible as war is and forever shall be, I do think that the A-Bombs were justified in their drops at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. War has always been a dirty game played by politicians and other characters, FDR was the one that ordered the drop of the bombs as Commander-in-Chief and President. But what you need to be conciderate of were the hundreds of thousands of American lives living in the islands near Japan who were invaded by the former Imperialistic Regime, and many were brutally killed, totured, imprisoned and raped. Not only American's but the other asian contries such as Korea and parts of China. The American soldiers, battered and war-torn from constant battle and Island-hopping were also at stake because of the Japanese custum of Bushido which says that they will die for their Emperor... and enjoy in the prospect.
Also, we are not the only ones to blame in the trgedy of that war in the Pacific. The ones who layed the first strike were the Japanese on December 7th, 1944 at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Hundreds of lives were lost due to an uncalled for and merciless attack by the zero fighters of the Imperial Japanese Navy. Then also the Invasion of America's own mainland on the Allutian Islands, Alaska. Hirohito and Tojo are as much of the ones to blame for their own undoing as FDR or all of America is. Another thing that we felt we needed retribution for the Batan Death March.
I agree totally on the prospect that the bombs should have been dropped somewhere else than the populated cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. But, if we bombed a military compund of Japan... would that have just hardened their resolve? I don't know the answer to that... but I do know that what they did had to scare the Japanese into ending the war totally without catch. I find that the bombing was justifiable... not right though. There are many sides to the story, and none of us will probably ever know the whole truth.

BleachKing04 wrote:

This is my answer from TWT on this question:


As terrible as war is and forever shall be, I do think that the A-Bombs were justified in their drops at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. War has always been a dirty game played by politicians and other characters, FDR was the one that ordered the drop of the bombs as Commander-in-Chief and President. But what you need to be conciderate of were the hundreds of thousands of American lives living in the islands near Japan who were invaded by the former Imperialistic Regime, and many were brutally killed, totured, imprisoned and raped. Not only American's but the other asian contries such as Korea and parts of China. The American soldiers, battered and war-torn from constant battle and Island-hopping were also at stake because of the Japanese custum of Bushido which says that they will die for their Emperor... and enjoy in the prospect.
Also, we are not the only ones to blame in the trgedy of that war in the Pacific. The ones who layed the first strike were the Japanese on December 7th, 1944 at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Hundreds of lives were lost due to an uncalled for and merciless attack by the zero fighters of the Imperial Japanese Navy. Then also the Invasion of America's own mainland on the Allutian Islands, Alaska. Hirohito and Tojo are as much of the ones to blame for their own undoing as FDR or all of America is. Another thing that we felt we needed retribution for the Batan Death March.
I agree totally on the prospect that the bombs should have been dropped somewhere else than the populated cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. But, if we bombed a military compund of Japan... would that have just hardened their resolve? I don't know the answer to that... but I do know that what they did had to scare the Japanese into ending the war totally without catch. I find that the bombing was justifiable... not right though. There are many sides to the story, and none of us will probably ever know the whole truth.

Wow,good point.

The main objective of the A bomb was not to kill and destroy recklessly. It was to end war as soon as possible. The reason why two bombs were dropped so quickly together was to create the effect that we had a continuous wave of nuclear strikes coming. I don't agree on why they dropped it at two major cities, but I think that the reasoning for it was to convince the Japanese. Had they dropped it at two military installations, the damage would not be as severe as the destruction of a city.

There might be a chance that the Japaneses would overlook the Atomic bomb, which would prolong war. The dropping of two bombs was an American bluff that we had a lot of them, which we didn't. Had the two bombs not create its "convincing effect," then the Americans would have to prompt the dreaded invasion.

True dat.

The German's had an atom bomb. But it was more of a dirty bomb. Radioactive material wrapped in blankets of silicon. It was meant to be exploded in the atmosphere, and eradiate a city.

Hans Klein wrote:

The German's had an atom bomb. But it was more of a dirty bomb. Radioactive material wrapped in blankets of silicon. It was meant to be exploded in the atmosphere, and eradiate a city.

Yeah, its true. It was pretty much a race between the world superpowers to create the first functioning Atom Bomb.

BleachKing04 wrote:

This is my answer from TWT on this question:


As terrible as war is and forever shall be, I do think that the A-Bombs were justified in their drops at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. War has always been a dirty game played by politicians and other characters, FDR was the one that ordered the drop of the bombs as Commander-in-Chief and President. But what you need to be conciderate of were the hundreds of thousands of American lives living in the islands near Japan who were invaded by the former Imperialistic Regime, and many were brutally killed, totured, imprisoned and raped. Not only American's but the other asian contries such as Korea and parts of China. The American soldiers, battered and war-torn from constant battle and Island-hopping were also at stake because of the Japanese custum of Bushido which says that they will die for their Emperor... and enjoy in the prospect.
Also, we are not the only ones to blame in the trgedy of that war in the Pacific. The ones who layed the first strike were the Japanese on December 7th, 1944 at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Hundreds of lives were lost due to an uncalled for and merciless attack by the zero fighters of the Imperial Japanese Navy. Then also the Invasion of America's own mainland on the Allutian Islands, Alaska. Hirohito and Tojo are as much of the ones to blame for their own undoing as FDR or all of America is. Another thing that we felt we needed retribution for the Batan Death March.
I agree totally on the prospect that the bombs should have been dropped somewhere else than the populated cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. But, if we bombed a military compund of Japan... would that have just hardened their resolve? I don't know the answer to that... but I do know that what they did had to scare the Japanese into ending the war totally without catch. I find that the bombing was justifiable... not right though. There are many sides to the story, and none of us will probably ever know the whole truth.

The Atomic Bomb affected Hiroshima and Nagasaki forever, it hasn't been restored properly.

Exactly.

Overall, considering everything that happened and could have happened, I think the bombs were necessaryHowever, I do think that the choice of targets was completely and utterly immoral.This is due to the fact that the majority of the casualties were civilians, innocent people who had nothing to do with the war who would now be affected for years to come.

Shadow Of The East wrote:

Exactly.

Overall, considering everything that happened and could have happened, I think the bombs were necessaryHowever, I do think that the choice of targets was completely and utterly immoral.This is due to the fact that the majority of the casualties were civilians, innocent people who had nothing to do with the war who would now be affected for years to come.

I agree with you, I mean, why not dump those bombs on Major Japanese Military Bases? The Civilians did not Rape and Maraud through China, the Soldiers did that.

Shadow Of The East wrote:

Exactly.

Overall, considering everything that happened and could have happened, I think the bombs were necessaryHowever, I do think that the choice of targets was completely and utterly immoral.This is due to the fact that the majority of the casualties were civilians, innocent people who had nothing to do with the war who would now be affected for years to come.

I oppose nuclear weapons, but for the sake of argument...

The only thing different is that nuclear weapons have a radioactivity fallout, which causes effects overtime. Other than that, I don't see its "moral factor" any different than conventional bombing. Take the bombing of London/Berlin/Tokyo for example. Civilians were still bombed, despite the weaponry being non-atomic. These cities were ruined, with immediate deaths similar to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. How can this be passed, yet the American atomic bombing be criticized in morality?

I think that the best military asset of the nuclear weapon is fear. We can replicate the immediate destruction of nuclear bombings with normal bombs easily, but it didn't have the fear factor in it. What the US needed was to convince the Japanese to surrender (something that the Japanese are not accustomed to).

SovietSoldier wrote:

Shadow Of The East wrote:

Exactly.

Overall, considering everything that happened and could have happened, I think the bombs were necessaryHowever, I do think that the choice of targets was completely and utterly immoral.This is due to the fact that the majority of the casualties were civilians, innocent people who had nothing to do with the war who would now be affected for years to come.

I agree with you, I mean, why not dump those bombs on Major Japanese Military Bases? The Civilians did not Rape and Maraud through China, the Soldiers did that.

Heres the reason why the Government chose not to drop them on a military base:

Attacking the people, as immoral as it is, places the Japanese Government in a precarious position. They will have to choose to stay in war and have another bomb possibly attack another populated city, or they could surrender, and the bombs will stop falling. It is a shock strategy that usually works.

If we were to bomb a major military base, the Japanese would build resolve to continue attacking us because of the Bushido code: "They were soldiers... they earned a beautiful death." But if we attacked the civilians, they are not soldiers so the resolve wouldn't be there.

We had to pick a city then, according to the last two reasons, but we refused to bomb a particular city: Kyoto. Kyoto historicaly, and still is today, the center for ALL Japanese. If we attacked there... which is the focul point of their culture, we wouldn't ever be able to become allies or friends after the war, because the Japanese would NEVER forgive us. That would cause more problem to happen in the future with us and Japan. Therefore, we HAD to attack a large city but not Kyoto. The other largest cities were Tokyo, Osaka, Hiroshima, and the prt city of Nagasaki. There's the reson why we couldn't attack a military base.

SovietSoldier wrote:

Shadow Of The East wrote:

Exactly.

Overall, considering everything that happened and could have happened, I think the bombs were necessaryHowever, I do think that the choice of targets was completely and utterly immoral.This is due to the fact that the majority of the casualties were civilians, innocent people who had nothing to do with the war who would now be affected for years to come.

I agree with you, I mean, why not dump those bombs on Major Japanese Military Bases? The Civilians did not Rape and Maraud through China, the Soldiers did that.

FACT: The original targets for the bombs were two army bases, but sever weather, and low fuel meant they had to go to their secondary target.

Overall, I think the bombs were necessary. Millions had been killed already, and millions more might well have died if they hadn't bombed. Agreed, there was a huge casualty rate, but that's the way all wars are. If you try to avoid killing innocents, then you're going to lost many more.