What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #3 - jacencaedus (01/15/2013) [-]
to be fair, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, shortened the war and saved more lives than they took
User avatar #48 to #3 - Fgner ONLINE (01/15/2013) [-]
If anything, they should talk about non-nuclear tactics of WWII. Carpet bombing and firebombing took untold more lives than the nukes. And in much more horrible ways. Burning to death is much worse than pretty much anything else.
User avatar #36 to #3 - srskate (01/15/2013) [-]
last time I said that, people started flipping **** .
#26 to #3 - azinfoo (01/15/2013) [-]
To be more fair, the US could have ended the war without invading land OR dropping the bombs.

For example, what if they were like, "Hey Japan, look at this big ass bomb we're about to drop on your sorry asses", then they demonstrated the bomb's capabilities on some Japanese island or forest or something. Then Japan's like, " **** . These ****** ain't nothin' to **** with". Japan surrenders, war over, thousands of people aren't dead or suffering from radiation poisoning. Yay.

Also, I think that nuking Nagasaki was just a little 'overkill'.

User avatar #56 to #26 - jacencaedus (01/15/2013) [-]
I'm pretty sure we did release info about the nuke, but I'm not sure
and as for Nagasaki, Japan was given the chance to surrender but they refused to
User avatar #55 to #26 - violenthandjob (01/15/2013) [-]
Even after the second bomb was dropped it took a coup on the emperor to get a surrender pact going. The only reason the ones who carried out the coup did it because they feared a bomb being dropped on Tokyo killing the royal family and a two prong invasion threat from the U.S. and the Soviets. IMO 80% of the Japanese population would have likely been killed in an invasion.
User avatar #46 to #26 - Fgner ONLINE (01/15/2013) [-]
Seriously, don't talk about things you don't know about.
#63 to #46 - azinfoo (01/16/2013) [-]
That's kind of ironic considering most of the people trying to correct me are probably Americans telling me what they learned in their history class.
User avatar #69 to #63 - Fgner ONLINE (01/16/2013) [-]
No. Nobody is sticking up for you because you are wrong. No Americans, no Europeans, no Japanese. You're a ******* idiot if you truly think that you are right on this subject matter.
And I love how you have to attack those providing evidence behind their facts since you have none, you obviously never even paid attention to secondary school since almost every thing on that list was done and more.
And Americans telling you? You think we glorify this **** ? No. Americans hate ourselves for our history to be honest. Europeans would like to believe otherwise (no offense, it's just a general stereotype that people buy into way to much), but Americans are just people, exactly like you. Just like the every single other peoples or country, America regrets the sins it has committed. Look through American textbooks, I swear you won't find a single instance of them saying "and we're glad we did it!" It was a sad week for Americans too. But we do justify it because it was justified. It saved countless lives and prevented so much more than it caused. If we hadn't, the battle between the USSR and Japan would have been the bloodiest we've ever seen. If we hadn't, Japan would have lost every single man, woman, and child in their defense. If we hadn't - God knows. We hold the blood of 350,000 innocent people for those bombings, but we gladly hold it knowing the cost if we didn't.

P.S. The nuclear bombs were just a drip in the pond. Firebombing Japan was the worst, Japan's cruelty to their enemies was worse, Germany was building the atomic bomb as well (if we waited any longer fending off the Japs, Germany would have had time to complete and deploy such bombs - no America wasn't the sole defeater of Germany, it took both America and Russia pressuring both fronts and causing such division of military), Russia was brutal in the sense of not giving a crap about it's soldiers, etc. It's war - not a picnic. Don't try to act like you wouldn't have done the same in the same position.
#33 to #26 - dontshoot ONLINE (01/15/2013) [-]
except they pretty much did that. not to mention Hiroshima was bombed considerably earlier than Nagasaki and they still refused to surrender. i hate to say it but bombing japan was the best course of action. if the allies had invaded japan the causalities are projected to have been at least 5 times as great as both bombs combined
#34 to #33 - azinfoo (01/15/2013) [-]
"considerably earlier"

It was three days but okay.
#37 to #34 - dontshoot ONLINE (01/15/2013) [-]
the allies sent japan a official statement to surrender after the first bomb but they still refused to surrender operation downfall: projected casualties of 1,202,005
Atomic bomb casualties: 346,000
User avatar #67 to #37 - jacencaedus (01/16/2013) [-]
and I just found out that we did give them a warning that we had a big ass bomb to drop on them if they didn't surrender
#32 to #26 - anonymous (01/15/2013) [-]
Japan was not about to believe America's "bluff". After the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan refused to surrender (some considered it, but the leaders of the military proved willing to enact martial law to continue the war). The second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, to prove that America had more than one
#27 to #26 - anonymous (01/15/2013) [-]
They dropped fliers all over Japan. No one believed/cared. Nothing is real until you experience it. It's just human nature.
User avatar #16 to #3 - Ivandrago (01/15/2013) [-]
Not necessarily. A lot of people overlook that the USSR was preparing a full-force attack on Japan at the time of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but then abandoned it because they exited the war.
User avatar #29 to #16 - albeit (01/15/2013) [-]
Which is another reason the U.S. dropped the bombs, they were rushing Japan into surrendering before the USSR's military could arrive, because they knew it would cause even more trouble as the USSR was likely to want to keep the territory in Japan that they took over
User avatar #43 to #29 - Fgner ONLINE (01/15/2013) [-]
And don't forget, the USSR weren't exactly conservative of lives. Neither were the Japs. A war between the brutality of those two countries would have ended in a land soaked with blood. The USSR would win - yes, but they wouldn't give two ***** about the lives of their own soldiers, and they would lose countless lives. And the Japs would have fought until every man, woman, and child had died fighting. Dropping the bombs was barely a bug bite compared to that mess.
User avatar #51 to #43 - albeit (01/15/2013) [-]
And, if I remember from History class correctly, the Japanese were prepared for a D-day style invasion from the U.S., which was our second plan apart from the bombs. For the invasion, not only did they have massive amounts of people (civilians and all) ready to fight on the main land, but they had plans to send women and children out in boats with bombs that would be detonated with U.S. boats came near. The women and children weren't chosen because the Japanese were monsters, hell chances are they volunteered, but they were instead used because they would not be as effective in hand to hand combat on land as the civilian men would be.
User avatar #13 to #3 - reaperssprint (01/15/2013) [-]
People also tend to forget that it was the first time the bombs were used, and because of its effects and the projected outcome of say something like the Cold War, the United Nations agreed to ban the use of WMD's.
#11 to #3 - neostar (01/15/2013) [-]
Exactly. It's like so many people try to use Hiroshima and Nagasaki as justification as to why America deserved something like 9/11 when H.S. and N.G. were pretty much nessesary to stop an almost unstoppable force while 9/11 was a terrorist attack that was organized because Bin laden didn't like a country.

Sure we nuked 2 major cities and killed thousands, but in the end it was needed. Personally I feel that nuke's just shouldn't be used unless something like WW2 happens again.
User avatar #68 to #11 - jacencaedus (01/16/2013) [-]
meant to say this in my last post, but forgot to somehow, anyway, I believe it was Einstein that said (I don't know the exact quote but this is what the meaning was) "I don't know what weapons WW3 will be fought with, but I know WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones"
User avatar #65 to #11 - jacencaedus (01/16/2013) [-]
hell the lowest estimate for lives that would have been lost if we ended up having to invade Japan was in the Millions, because we knew damn well that we would of had to take every island and each one would have been a fight to the last man on the Japanese' part.
#6 to #3 - mattkingg **User deleted account** (01/15/2013) [-]
It's a slippery slope either way, because we have no idea what would have happened if the bomb hadn't been dropped, so we have nothing to compare the tragedy of hiroshima to.

but nukes are bad y'all
User avatar #66 to #6 - jacencaedus (01/16/2013) [-]
look both to my reply to neostar up above and to kingrayne's reply just below you
(sorry for the alerts guys
User avatar #4 to #3 - kingrayne ONLINE (01/15/2013) [-]
Most people don't seem to understand that.
A land invasion wouldve cost millions more lives.
User avatar #9 to #4 - imcoolashell (01/15/2013) [-]
and clearly the post is trying to justify iran's reasoning, proving these people are dumb.
If Iran had half as many warheads as the US, the world would be ******
#8 to #4 - Hightower (01/15/2013) [-]
...or that the Japanese were brutal. They would have fought to the last man and the started sending in the women and children.
User avatar #54 to #8 - violenthandjob (01/15/2013) [-]
What's left would have been partly conquered by the Soviets too.
User avatar #5 to #4 - daentraya (01/15/2013) [-]
Yup.. And let's hope that we'll learn from that, after we've seen just how ******* terrible that is
 Friends (0)