Post: The Atomic Bomb
Options
04-14-2011, 06:41 PM
#56
TheTrueAce
Bounty hunter
04-15-2011, 05:13 AM
#57
Just4Hax
"I will speak ill of
Originally posted by xinfectedsoulx
No. Retaliating with 2 atomic bombs was completely unnecessary. The amount of civilians they killed was completely uncalled for. Why didn't they bomb a Japanese Military bases? Or more than one? Why kill civilians in a FISHING village? There was nothing about it that can be justified. Sure, it saved millions more soldiers lives, but you have to remember, they chose to be in the military (unless conscription was still in play?). When you sign up, you should know the dangers of what could happen. It's your duty protect civilians. Wars are not between 2 or more countries, they are between the people running the countries. Why do civilians have to be nuked and pay the ultimate price to stop the government? They shouldn't have to. It should be military vs military, paper vs paper. The Japanese bombed the enemy, not the civilians. The Americans bombed the civilians, not the enemy.
We didn't bomb military because the soldiers were hidden in tunnels. It was what made taking islands awful. BTW the con side won on the debate.
---------- Post added at 10:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:04 PM ----------
Originally posted by Microsuck
To me, I think it was necessary. It was either, risk many more American lives to MAYBE defeat Japan, or fire a warning shot.
I believe the nuke should have in theory no effect on Japan. Fire bombings had killed 1,300,000 Japanese, destroyed over 60 cities, and some say Japan was not looking for peace in any way. Yet, 200,000 die and Japan goes from being this country that would fight to its very last breathe to a country that gives an unconditional surrender? I don't buy that.
04-15-2011, 08:11 AM
#59
Just4Hax
"I will speak ill of
Originally posted by glitchplz
Give me some con responses to my post 
I have to find your post first
---------- Post added at 01:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:58 AM ----------
Originally posted by glitchplz
Also there is the statistic of a near 10 million lives being saved.
That is if we went through Operation Downfall, which there were other alternatives. As I would like to state again that the Japanese were starting to want peace at the end.
Originally posted by another user
The Japanese could have prevented all civilian casualties. Before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, 700,000 leaflets were dropped warning of the bomb.
Firstly, I would like your source, as I am not familiar with this. I am however aware that we had warned the Japanese that "fire would rain on them".
Originally posted by another user
Hiroshima was a military hotspot. The Japanese 2nd army was based here. Also, Hiroshima was big in war industry.
Specify the last part, and the Japanese had 300,000 soldiers waiting on another island for invasion. We also could have firebombed the city.
Originally posted by another user
Does it matter if we bombed a ton of small bombs similar to a typical war or one large bomb?
Yes, entirely. It is the difference between making civilians go through inhumane deaths or quick painless deaths. Not to mention you are missing the fact because the nuke was dropped there, the radiation levels are still high and the land was inhabitable for many many years. Not to mention it got into the waters.
Firebombs would have done the same damage, less painfully. Plus, the land would have been usable later on. The water would have less radioactive contamination, and the radioactive effects would not still be felt today.
---------- Post added at 01:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:10 AM ----------
Originally posted by Microsuck
To me, I think it was necessary. It was either, risk many more American lives to MAYBE defeat Japan, or fire a warning shot.
Why do you think the Nuke ended the war? Just tell me what it did that changed Japan's mindset so much.
Copyright © 2026, NextGenUpdate.
All Rights Reserved.
