Opinion Question
Argument
Posted by:

H*LL No, not Nagasaki!!!

  You know what, personally I see no problem with dropping atomic bombs on a target that was military in nature, but to drop them on civilians is just barbaric and low. It constitutes terrorism and violates the Hague Convention (regarding the rules of war) that the U.S. had signed. In this sense, the U.S. were no different to Nazi Germany and Japan when it came to war crimes on enemy civilians. At least with conventional bombing, bombers aim for specific military-related targets (like a barracks, munitions factory, depot etc), but the atomic bomb destroys everything even those not related to the war effort (think about hospitals, universities, high schools, primary schools, kindergardens, religious buildings, cultural landmarks, residential suburbs etc). Going behind enemy lines to bomb their civilians is low when there was a high concentration of Japanese military in Kyushu because they were anticipating a U.S. invasion. The point is, are dropping atomic bombs on civilian cities ever justified for whatever political goal? Shouldn't the bombs have been dropped on a predominantly military target (like on the frontline)? If a Nazi had dropped an atomic bomb on New York City, and he pleaded that he was merely trying to "end the war and save lives", would YOU still agree to him being hanged? If so, shouldn't Truman thus be hanged for using atomic bombs on civilian cities? With no navy, no air force, their armies losing in China, their people at home starving to death, American bombers ruling their skies, an effective American sea blockade in place, Russia having just declared war on them, and with martial law imposed, Japan was essentially defeated by August 1945. America had 100% air superiority over Japanese skies and 100% sea superiority in Japanese waters. Japan didn't even have the ability to shoot down the lone bomber that carried the atomic bomb. No atomic bombs or a costly U.S. invasion was militarily necessary to end WWII. If I was the U.S. President I would've waited until Russia declared war on Japan on August 9, 1945 (as part of the promise they made to America). I would've waited to see if Japan would surrender in the wake of this Russian intervention (Note: this is actually what happened, Russia's entry into the Pacific War was what forced Japan to surrender). I would've waited until Japan believed all hope in China was lost (which was inevitable with the Chinese winning the war and Russia's eventual invasion of Manchuria). I would've waited until the sea blockade forced the majority of the starving Japanese people and the nervous Japanese cabinet to end the war (this is what Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz suggested to Truman, since he knew that with martial law imposed Japan was on the verge of rebellion). I would've given a public message to Japan saying that Emperor Hirohito would not be tried as a war criminal and the imperial family would be saved (this is what Gen. Douglas MacArthur wanted Truman to do, since he believed Japan only fought on to save the imperial family from post war prosecution). These alternatives were there for Truman to use. It wouldn't of hurt to have tried them, but Truman did not use any of them. All these possibilities would've saved American lives, saved Japanese lives, given America a good image, and more importantly, ended World War II in a civilized manner. If Truman was serious about saving lives he would've tried those alternatives before resorting to the atomic bomb. It's funny how the atomic bombs were dropped on August 6 and August 9 when Truman knew that Russia would declare war on Japan on August 9. In an interview to "The New York Times" in 1946, Albert Einstein believed that Truman deliberately used atomic bombs to try and end WWII before Russia could get involved. And indeed, by looking at those dates the only logical explanation for Truman to drop the atomic bombs on civilian cities so close to Russia's intervention was to intimidate Russia.
Anonymous says2013-05-06T15:02:54.163
Heres how we weredifferent than the nazis in the war, we werent killing to complete the geneside of an entire race or certain type of people who we think are inferior to us, we killed to end a war that wouldve killed many more people. And we supposedly dropped the bomb in Hiorishima on accident, it was meant for a military base.
Anonymous says2013-05-07T11:46:32.457
You do realise that if Russia had invaded Japan(which would be impossible considering the fact that they had few weapons to spare. Apparently they gave one gun to two soldiers), then Cold war would have been completely different. Korean War wouldn't have been a stalemated and A Greater Unified Korean Communist Regime would be formed. That would have made them more than decisive in Pacific theater. Giving them more than a clear route to South East Asia. For all we know US would have been brought down to their knees.
Anonymous says2013-05-16T03:56:33.460
What makes you think that soldiers are different from civilians? There are lots of soldiers who were drafted. They did not wanted to go to the war. And now just because they are considered soldiers, they should die instead of a civilian? I don't understand why people think a soldier should die instead of a civilian.
Anonymous says2013-05-30T00:48:13.590
How could you be so ignorant as to relate the united states to terrorists. You must be an idiot yourself. The Japanese did terrible things to US soldiers and deserved to die!
Charcharodon says2014-08-06T06:30:13.710
There were military bases in those cities. One of the factories that was destroyed had produced the very torpedoes used in the attack on Pearl Harbor. The targets were selected for a reason. This wasn't a wanton act of destruction.
stubbornconseravtive says2016-04-18T18:22:21.017
Two Bombs, it took two bombs to make Japan Surrender, not one, not two, one, and thats why we used them. Because Japan wasnt going to surrender.
Evildrpepper24 says2016-05-16T20:40:13.233
They attacked us
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)