Hiroshima

Dom:

Eleanor Rigby:

Dom:

yes, it was necessary, the Japenese cared so much about pride and honour they would not have surrendered unless something really shocking was done first. Also, if the war carried on then just as many people could have been killed.

i've always wondered...wasn't the shock effect kind of in place after the first one? why two? why so many more innocent lives if all we wanted was something "really shocking"?

well, if they had have surrendered after the first bomb had been dropped, then im guessing the second one wouldn't have been.

they were literally 3 days apart.
we could give them a few days to recover their country, i should think.

Eleanor Rigby:

Ipod:

Mm... i doubt that would have happened anyway...i mean there's still hitler to think about...mm...

correct me if i'm wrong but these bombs were dropped post victory in europe day, am i right?
so no, there was no hitler to think about.

there was victory in Europe, but no victory in Japan at that point. So there was the Japanese leader to worry about (sorry i don't know his name).

Dom:

Eleanor Rigby:

Ipod:

Mm... i doubt that would have happened anyway...i mean there's still hitler to think about...mm...

correct me if i'm wrong but these bombs were dropped post victory in europe day, am i right?
so no, there was no hitler to think about.

there was victory in Europe, but no victory in Japan at that point. So there was the Japanese leader to worry about (sorry i don't know his name).

i'm well aware of that.
i was simply making it clear that hitler, who is the one force that no one can deny we had to engage in war to stop, was clearly out of the picture.

Eleanor Rigby:

Dom:

Eleanor Rigby:

Dom:

yes, it was necessary, the Japenese cared so much about pride and honour they would not have surrendered unless something really shocking was done first. Also, if the war carried on then just as many people could have been killed.

i've always wondered...wasn't the shock effect kind of in place after the first one? why two? why so many more innocent lives if all we wanted was something "really shocking"?

well, if they had have surrendered after the first bomb had been dropped, then im guessing the second one wouldn't have been.

they were literally 3 days apart.
we could give them a few days to recover their country, i should think.

Perhaps, but i think 3 days is long enough to say "we surrender".

well it's been debated for years hasn't it.... I think they should have done it it ended the war and countless lives had been lost because of japan and they didn't care....it was more horiffic because of the way they were killed and in such huge numbers but russia lost millions fighting and no one looks twice at that...

~*Professor Snape*~:

well it's been debated for years hasn't it.... I think they should have done it it ended the war and countless lives had been lost because of japan and they didn't care....it was more horiffic because of the way they were killed and in such huge numbers but russia lost millions fighting and no one looks twice at that...

i agree with u...japan woulda kept fighting and then bombed us some more...and we lost innocent lives too all u ppl that say that about the jap. ppl that died...and like how they dont look at russia...that still goes on...kinda like they never talk about afganistan (well hardly ever) and thats where the war right now started

yea, they had these horrid death marches, worse than ones during the holocaust, to POW's.

Anji:

I think many lives could have easily been saved had both countrues agreed to negotiate with each other peacefully.

so short, after pearl harbor


you seriously crack me up

i don't really know alot about the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima but reading the comments i get more of a better picture.
I agree with you that no matter how 'necessary' the Americans thought that it was to drop the 'a' bomb on Japan, killing innocent civilians that get caught up, nearly 1 million is not necessary and can't be justified by the fact that they were at war. Many civilians get caught up in war, its all part of it sadly, but that many people should not suffer because of it!

Eleanor Rigby:

Dom:

yes, it was necessary, the Japenese cared so much about pride and honour they would not have surrendered unless something really shocking was done first. Also, if the war carried on then just as many people could have been killed.

i've always wondered...wasn't the shock effect kind of in place after the first one? why two? why so many more innocent lives if all we wanted was something "really shocking"?

because after the first bomb the Japenese refused to speak to American officials, so being Americans they blow up another city.

"As far as his own life was concerned, one thing seemed quite clear. 'I made one great mistake in my life,' he said to Linus Pauling, who spent an hour with him on the morning of November 11, 1954, '...when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made
-Albert Einstein

Now if one of the participant in the creation of the 'a' bomb was against, i don't see how this arguement is neccesary.

In the end what it comes down to is morality, in question to the war effort Japan were losing, the people of the country who were also the victims of these horrific events were starving. Harvest in the country was in drought a year before.

The reason the bombs were dropped was so that America would not have to invade, however what the history books do no tell you is that if they had invaded the war would of been over in about a month. There was no Japanese army left.

The A bomb was an experiment carried out by American scientist to see how much powere it possesed, they were reckless they didn't know what it would do. It could of wiped out entire continants, they showed no regard for human life.

America was angry, the idea of it being the unbreakable country had been broken at Pearl Harbour. They wanted to prove themselves.

War in europe had finished, the only threat America had was Russia and they decided to send their message to the middle man. The innocent peasents of Japan.

St.JimmyT9109:

~*Professor Snape*~:

well it's been debated for years hasn't it.... I think they should have done it it ended the war and countless lives had been lost because of japan and they didn't care....it was more horiffic because of the way they were killed and in such huge numbers but russia lost millions fighting and no one looks twice at that...

i agree with u...japan woulda kept fighting and then bombed us some more...and we lost innocent lives too all u ppl that say that about the jap. ppl that died...and like how they dont look at russia...that still goes on...kinda like they never talk about afganistan (well hardly ever) and thats where the war right now started

RUSSIA NEVER FUCKING BOMBED AMERICA IN WORLD WAR II, THEY HAD NO MONEY, CHRIST THE COULDN'T EVEN AFFORD TO FEED THEMSELVES.

Dom:

Eleanor Rigby:

Ipod:

Mm... i doubt that would have happened anyway...i mean there's still hitler to think about...mm...

correct me if i'm wrong but these bombs were dropped post victory in europe day, am i right?
so no, there was no hitler to think about.

there was victory in Europe, but no victory in Japan at that point. So there was the Japanese leader to worry about (sorry i don't know his name).

Koki Hirota

NeoSteph:

"As far as his own life was concerned, one thing seemed quite clear. 'I made one great mistake in my life,' he said to Linus Pauling, who spent an hour with him on the morning of November 11, 1954, '...when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made
-Albert Einstein

Now if one of the participant in the creation of the 'a' bomb was against, i don't see how this arguement is neccesary.

In the end what it comes down to is morality, in question to the war effort Japan were losing, the people of the country who were also the victims of these horrific events were starving. Harvest in the country was in drought a year before.

The reason the bombs were dropped was so that America would not have to invade, however what the history books do no tell you is that if they had invaded the war would of been over in about a month. There was no Japanese army left.

The A bomb was an experiment carried out by American scientist to see how much powere it possesed, they were reckless they didn't know what it would do. It could of wiped out entire continants, they showed no regard for human life.

America was angry, the idea of it being the unbreakable country had been broken at Pearl Harbour. They wanted to prove themselves.

War in europe had finished, the only threat America had was Russia and they decided to send their message to the middle man. The innocent peasents of Japan.

well.. i disagree, saying they had no regard for human life is saying a lot, and somewhat ignorant of you to say.

im not saying dropping the bombs was 100% just, but saying that the war would have been over in a month is mere speculation

zdf_jammin:

well.. i disagree, saying they had no regard for human life is saying a lot, and somewhat ignorant of you to say.

im not saying dropping the bombs was 100% just, but saying that the war would have been over in a month is mere speculation

curious if you can justify what they did in any moral way...show me what regard they had for the million lives that were lost?

It's such an amazing place. <3 the history, the peace fountain and flame. 1000 cranes.. If you EVER get a chance to go, it's just a moving experience. trust me.

ok from what my History teacher told me last year in class when i asked about this while we were watching a movie on Truman, he said that if we had to send in our troops into japan the number of the lives lost would have been double on both sides from the lives lost from the bombs because of how feirce of fighters the japanese were...he also said that Truman didnt want to drop the bombs but he had to decide what was best for our country and de-humanize the japanese

Speechless&Redundant:

ok from what my History teacher told me last year in class when i asked about this while we were watching a movie on Truman, he said that if we had to send in our troops into japan the number of the lives lost would have been double on both sides from the lives lost from the bombs because of how feirce of fighters the japanese were...he also said that Truman didnt want to drop the bombs but he had to decide what was best for our country and de-humanize the japanese

the question remains, why two?
also, the japanese, though fierce and determined, were weak. like hitler, who was fierce and so obviously determined, weakness can force a war to end even sooner than the fighters desire it too.
the amount of lives that would be lost is truly speculation, no one can ever know, but we can assume that we were right because we are the almighty U.S. or we can assume that we were wrong because we had no respect for human life.

NeoSteph:

Dom:

Eleanor Rigby:

Ipod:

Mm... i doubt that would have happened anyway...i mean there's still hitler to think about...mm...

correct me if i'm wrong but these bombs were dropped post victory in europe day, am i right?
so no, there was no hitler to think about.

there was victory in Europe, but no victory in Japan at that point. So there was the Japanese leader to worry about (sorry i don't know his name).

Koki Hirota

Thank you, and on your other point about Japan having no troops left, in a documentary about Hiroshima i saw last night it mentioned the Japanese having 3 million troops and 5000 planes. I don't know how accurate this is though.