ClumsyMonkey.net

60 years on. Do you think it was necessary to end the war?

Personally I think that it was completely imoral and that NOTHING justifies that amount of human suffering.

The bottom line is that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had nothing to do with World War II, and everything to do with the Cold War

It was more so to show the power they had, and to test what the nuke could do.

Hindsight is always fabulous. The Japanese were warned. The whole reason it was used was to ensure that Russia did not become involved in the Pacific so that we didnt end up with a divided japan ust like Germany. It would have been used on the Germans too if they hadnt fallen.

Cos... that makes it ok...

Total death toll from Hiroshima and Nagasaki is around 360 thousand lives (this includes those who have since died of radiation sickness and leukemia etc). How many would have been killed had the planned invasion of Japan gone ahead and the war continued for another 12-24 months? Of course whether the course of action taken by the then Allied forces will always be under contention. How can you justify dropping a bomb that kills 360 thousand people? Did it save lives in the long run? Is there a difference between killing 360 thousand people with 2 bombs and killing 500 thousand people in a prolonged invasion? What if Russia had entered the Pacific war theatre because of the extra time it was taking to subdue Japan? The answer of "You shouldn't have done that" to the "Should we have nuked Japan" question is not always so clear cut as you might want it to be.

In a way I think we have these bombs to thank for there not being any nuclear action since. The bombs that countries have now are capable of doing tons more damage than what these atomic bombs did. I think countries have decided not to use nuclear weapons yet because of what they saw happen to Japan. That's my take.

The War would have been over in two weeks. Plus, to have been in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, especially Hiroshima would have been like living hell. People were vaporised on the spot, and they were the lucky ones. Actually, you were pretty lucky if you diddn't die in the weeks follwing the bomb from rotting alive and bleeding to death, which is just some of the effects of radiation sickness.
I agree with J-Neli that the reason neuclear bombs havn't been used since has alot to do with Japan, but it's not certain. The U.S military only performed one test of an atom bomb before attacking Hiroshima, it would be safe to presume that more tests would have been carried out, and they may have realised moral implications before anything could happen. Probably not, but its a possibility. When it comes down to it, thats all Hiroshima was, an experiment.

what a spectacle wrote:The War would have been over in two weeks. Plus, to have been in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, especially Hiroshima would have been like living hell. People were vaporised on the spot, and they were the lucky ones. Actually, you were pretty lucky if you diddn't die in the weeks follwing the bomb from rotting alive and bleeding to death, which is just some of the effects of radiation sickness.
I agree with J-Neli that the reason neuclear bombs havn't been used since has alot to do with Japan, but it's not certain. The U.S military only performed one test of an atom bomb before attacking Hiroshima, it would be safe to presume that more tests would have been carried out, and they may have realised moral implications before anything could happen. Probably not, but its a possibility. When it comes down to it, thats all Hiroshima was, an experiment.

Hopefully there won't be any more such "experiments" iin years to come...

Yeah... I can see it now... George Bush meets with his super war general whatever to duiscuss weather they should release enough neuclear power to destroy the earth 7 times over at Pakistan and see what happenes. "That'll get rid of those terrorist types"

what a spectacle wrote:Yeah... I can see it now... George Bush meets with his super war general whatever to duiscuss weather they should release enough neuclear power to destroy the earth 7 times over at Pakistan and see what happenes. "That'll get rid of those terrorist types"

Ugh don't jinx it! Man the current administration scares me...

wow ok... you're not serious right?

Just in case you are...

Nuclear weapons have three uses.

The first has never been seen as they are primarily used as weapons that cause mass destruction.

The second is what they really stand for: power. During the Cold War there were more nuclear weapons available to the USA and the USSR than there are currently if you combine all of the nuclear weapons put together on Earth. Now, what two countries did we deem the most powerful in the world? That's right, the ones who had the bombs. So essentially if you want to look like you have power, you build bombs. The USSR was crumbling underneath itself even though the entire world looked at them as a powerhouse. Neither country had any desire to actually use the weapons. They just wanted to have power.

The third reason why nuclear weapons exist is because the weapons sector helps spur economic growth. The second you start using the weapons, the need for them is lost completely because everyone will be using them. If you continue to build weapons, while using the argument that "we need more than them" you will be helping your economy.


Bush is not that stupid to think that a nuclear bomb is the answer. He has people around him who know that the USA would be the primary target of any weapons any hostile nation owned. Essentially, the use of a nuclear weapon would be a step backwards in the fight for power, as odds are if you instigate the fight, you're going to take a harder blow than your opponent. Especially in the case of the USA.

J-Neli wrote:wow ok... you're not serious right?

Just in case you are...

Nuclear weapons have three uses.

The first has never been seen as they are primarily used as weapons that cause mass destruction.

The second is what they really stand for: power. During the Cold War there were more nuclear weapons available to the USA and the USSR than there are currently if you combine all of the nuclear weapons put together on Earth. Now, what two countries did we deem the most powerful in the world? That's right, the ones who had the bombs. So essentially if you want to look like you have power, you build bombs. The USSR was crumbling underneath itself even though the entire world looked at them as a powerhouse. Neither country had any desire to actually use the weapons. They just wanted to have power.

The third reason why nuclear weapons exist is because the weapons sector helps spur economic growth. The second you start using the weapons, the need for them is lost completely because everyone will be using them. If you continue to build weapons, while using the argument that "we need more than them" you will be helping your economy.


Bush is not that stupid to think that a nuclear bomb is the answer. He has people around him who know that the USA would be the primary target of any weapons any hostile nation owned. Essentially, the use of a nuclear weapon would be a step backwards in the fight for power, as odds are if you instigate the fight, you're going to take a harder blow than your opponent. Especially in the case of the USA.

I agree with you on all that. And I know it would have to get pretty desperate for him to use such a thing, although he does have ways of getting around the people around him (ex: the Bolton appointment going completely behind the senate's back). But there are some insane leaders out there with nuclear power (i.e. Kim Jong Il) and if any of them were to do anything, I can imagine Bush, or whoever is in office for that matter, retaliating quite harshly. I just pray that no one anywhere is stupid enough to actually use a nuclear weapon any time again, because if one gets used then many will get used, and bye bye Earth.

what a spectacle wrote:The War would have been over in two weeks. Plus, to have been in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, especially Hiroshima would have been like living hell. People were vaporised on the spot, and they were the lucky ones. Actually, you were pretty lucky if you diddn't die in the weeks follwing the bomb from rotting alive and bleeding to death, which is just some of the effects of radiation sickness.

On what basis/fact do you make the claim the war would have been over in 2 weeks? And people dying of radiation sickness is better than those allied soldiers captured and sent to Japanese prisoner of war camps?

There is far too much speculation involved in any of this. Especially considering the 60 years of history that has since passed.

Using the bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima was very stupid, with terrible consequences, especially since with the Hiroshima bombing(i'm unsure about Nagasaki), they bombed after the Japanese Government surrended and let the US "Win". I think the worst part was how irresponsible they were in not knowing the side/after affects of the nuclear materials inside the bomb and how they'd change the ecosystem. Although they probably were hoping they'd be very very bad indeed, it does "benefit" one in a War.

Anyways, did you all know(I'm sure Jim does), that Canadian scientists were on the frontlines of the Atomic Bomb planning/building stages, and only bowed out when they found out what the bombs would be used for (although when you sign up to build a bomb, I don't know how you can not know they will be used for killing.)?

Also.. it was Canadian uranium used in the bombs that dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

canadians played a very major role in the development of the nuclear bomb. only one uranium refinery was left for the allies to use at the time, which was the Eldorado Refinery (i don't like the name) in Port Hope, Ontario. also the heavy water that was used to build the Fat Man was supplied by a mining and smelting company in british columbia. we also supplied a safe working environment for british scientists to work on the manhattan project, and it was canadian scientists who discovered uranium 235, how to purify it, and how to create the first chain reaction with it.

Yep.

On the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there will never be an acceptable justification for it. Hindsight is 20/20. There is no way we we can understand the reasons for it, because we weren't there. Jim I like your point of view on it, and I agree completely.

I have a 3 dvd set on the development and testing of the atomic bomb. It's an interesting/scary watch. The US did attempt to find alternate uses of the bombs besides war. However they became irrelevant because of the amount of radiation created.

My great uncle helped develop on it.