atom bomb

[bearded ape 0]

i think that it was the right thing to do becuse even though over 100,000 died, even more Japenese and Americans (around a million each!) would have died if we had tried to take the mainland conventionaly.

[trekzone 0]

because i wasnt there, i can only comment on the propaganda, i believe that we stopped a surge of evil in its tracks, made it think. If i could go back in time I wouldnt stop it.

 

Again, thats based on propaganda, i mean if i was there i may change my stance but...

[master_q 0]

Yes, of course.

First off if we had to invade Japan more lives would have been lost in the long run.

Second some of the traditional raids over Germany more lives were lost during one night in one city.

 

. . .

 

 

Master Q

StarTrek_Master_Q@yahoo.com

[Xeroc 0]

I say yes, it might seem cruel, but in the end it saved more lives than it ended.

[VaBeachGuy 12]

Yes, but it's hard to be the judge of that 60 years later. Those are decisions that had to be made back then based on concerns of the day and influenced on issues of that day. Ending the war and saving American lives played a major factor in it but I also think revenge played a small role (and I think it played a rightfull role).

 

I won't second guess the decision, I'll trust that the best decision was made with the information they had at hand.

[deagletime 1]

By your rational...it was GOOD that the highjackers flew the planes into the WTC and only killed several thousand bringing the atttention of the american public to global terrorism decreasing the amount of innocent bystanders that would have died had al quida/osama bin laden been allowed to continue his global terrorism

 

as a person of japanese ancestry, i can tell u first hand the sorrow i feel when i think how my grandfather and family perished in hiroshima when the atomic bomb was dropped...

 

Click for Spoiler:

their flesh was incinerated to a blackened crisp slipping off their bones all the while their nerve endings seared in unbearable pain as every tissue on their body slipped off their body leaving them a pool of blackened steaming blood...

 

 

yet, here we are 50 years later, and children are still feeling the effects of radiation poisining...not only is my grandfather anemic, but children today are born with unusually high levels of birth defects due to radiation caused mutations in their parents and grandparents reproductive organs...

 

despite the fact that american lives were saved, if i have learned anything in my life, i know that there is always another solution to a problem...yes, millions were saved on both sides, but at what cost??? children born today should not have to bear the brunt of the decisions that our grandfathers and great grandfathers made 50 years back... yes as a us born citizen, as was my father and grandfather were as well, i have a deep love for our america, but i still firmly believe that in the case of the atomic bomb, the ends DID NOT justify the means...

[APW 0]

By your rational...it was GOOD that the highjackers flew the planes into the WTC and only killed several thousand  bringing the atttention of the american public to global terrorism decreasing the amount of innocent bystanders that would have died had al quida/osama bin laden been allowed to continue his global terrorism

 

as a person of japanese ancestry, i can tell u first hand the sorrow i feel when i think how my grandfather and family perished in hiroshima when the atomic bomb was dropped...

 

Click for Spoiler:

their flesh was incinerated to a blackened crisp slipping off their bones all the while their nerve endings seared in unbearable pain as every tissue on their body slipped off their body leaving them a pool of blackened steaming blood...

 

 

 

yet, here we are 50 years later, and children are still feeling the effects of radiation poisining...not only is my grandfather anemic, but children today are born with unusually high levels of birth defects due to radiation caused mutations in their parents and grandparents reproductive organs...

 

despite the fact that american lives were saved, if i have learned anything in my life, i know that there is always another solution to a problem...yes, millions were saved on both sides, but at what cost??? children born today should not have to bear the brunt of the decisions that our grandfathers and great grandfathers made 50 years back... yes as a us born citizen, as was my father and grandfather were as well, i have a deep love for our america, but i still firmly believe that in the case of the atomic bomb, the ends DID NOT justify the means...

I agree.But the way I see it those problems are due to the Japanese leadership's uncompromising resistance to ending the war,despite any costs continuing it engendered.America did what had to be done,no apologies.

What troubles me,is that modern japanese schools and history books have completely altered history to make it appear that japan was attacked without reason and fought a purely defensive war to "save asia"...

I saw a documentary years ago,where young japanese kids argued with their grandparents about what "really" happened during the war,and all the young kids believed the revisionist history taught them...

so,what has japan really learned by the war and atom bomb?Nothing.

[mj 7]

I think these questions are rightfully visited in retrospect, and that we, as moral people, cannot avoid facing the fact that innocent people suffered horribly based on a "practical" military decision. I think it is different dealing with the consequences of things like radiation contamination that affect unborn generations, than it is comparing mere numbers of dead, and observing that equal or more numbers of dead were killed here or there, when the long term consequences are not comparable. I appreciate the comments of deagletime giving first hand information on immediate and long term suffering.

 

It is also important to talk about this, in order to help understand that to avoid being found in a position where we have to consider using even worse nuclear weapons, that we have to do the kinds of things we are trying to do now to deal with aggressive terrorism, rather than allow a relentless aggressive enemy to back us into a corner, forcing the use of worse weapons, with even worse consequences. Thinking about Hiroshima helps us to know what we want to avoid, and helps us to face what we must do now in order to minimize the possibility of such a decision being made again in the future.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

I really don't think TPTB fully understood radiation during the development of the atomic bomb - ex: people used to watch tests with minimal protection and a few years ago someone raised the concern that the increased cancer rates in the SW US were related to the tests. So I do wonder if they really understood the longterm effects of what they doing. And the use of science and technology without a full understanding of its implications is always a problem.

 

Regarding the death and destruction - I don't know if there is any good way to die in a war. Right or wrong I do wonder if this event was a primary cause of American's standing in the world. I mean I wonder if other nations looked at us and thought OMG, look at what these people are capable of doing - I guess we won't mess with them.

 

I really don't feel I can say it was right or wrong - I can't look at it from the perspective of someone engaged in a bitter war. It happened and we can't change that . But we can look at the event, the destruction and the long term effects and ask if we should ever let it happen again?

[Goose 0]

Stardate:213655.7

 

 

 

I think it was the right decision to drop the bomb

[Admiral Kirk 1]

I hate to say this but at the time it was the best militaty option. It was not the best moral option though, but when has dropping bombs on civilians ever been the best moral option. When you are several feet in the air all one can see are buildings. The Japanese leadership would not surrender and there would have been a lot more losses of life on both sides. The US military would have had to fight Japanese old men, women and children who had been prepared to resist them. I agree tha there was not a full understanding of just how destructive an atomic bomb actually was. Even the pilots and the crew of Enola Gay were shocked at the power of the blast. I only hope a decision like that will never be made again. But considering countries are playing with Nuclear devices that make those bombs seem like fire crackers this will happen again.

[Captain Holland 0]

Yes, I mean I don't have anything against the Japanese, but they shouldn't have attacked us they should have thought of what the consequences would be.

[captainfreeman 0]

I could not cast a vote.I'm not certain whether or not dropping the atom bomb was the right decision.Part of me says that yes,it was the right thing to do.It saved lives,etc.Another part of me,wonders whether or not(in the long run) a simple naval blockade would have eventually "starved" Japan into a negotiated peace,an option that may have also saved many tens of thousands of lives.There were so many factors that went into Truman's decision to go ahead with an atomic attack.For one thing,America was not fond of the idea of Stalin's powerful Red Army thundering into Manchuria and perhaps,annexing a large portion of that area of asia for the USSR.Already,the Soviets had annexed northern Japanese islands,and they clearly would have settled for more territory.So even then,the Cold War was shaping history.Its a very complicated issue,with right and wrong decisions on all sides of the issue.

[Yellow_Dragon 0]

I vote yes,though there were excellent arguments both for and against the use of atomic weapons in this discussion.

[mr_tinkles 0]

I vote no.

Japan's military had been effectively driven back to the Japanese mainland,their resources were greatly deminished...they weren't going anywhere.A naval blockade could have worked.Continued negotiations could have worked.There had to have been better options,that weren't pursued.I'd hate to think that race played a factor,but I don't believe Truman would have dropped "The Bomb" on Berlin or Frankfurt.There was also the revenge factor for Pearl Harbor.

I personally view the atomic attacks against Nagasaki and Hiroshima as two of the ugliest and barbaric moments is American history,and signed a petition against displaying the Enola Gay at the Smithsonian a few years back.

[master_q 0]

I can prove that negotiations wouldn't have worked. What nukes that theory is that when we did drop the first atom bomb on them they still refused to negotiate.

 

 

Master Q

StarTrek_Master_Q@yahoo.com

[mr_tinkles 0]

I can prove that negotiations wouldn't have worked. What nukes that theory is that when we did drop the first atom bomb on them they still refused to negotiate.

 

 

Master Q

StarTrek_Master_Q@yahoo.com

That's no proof.

Given that a blockade was never given a chance,much less considered,you can offer no proof that it would not have worked in time.

[master_q 0]

That's no proof.

Given that a blockade was never given a chance,much less considered,you can offer no proof that it would not have worked in time.

No

 

I have a problem with your logic here. You are comparing a blockade with the dropping of an atom bomb. If you want to defend your position, then I would provide a much better case then comparing a blockade and the dropping of an atom bomb equal in their effectiveness and so on ...

 

 

Master Q

StarTrek_Master_Q@yahoo.com

[SoCalTom 0]

Yes, I mean I don't have anything against the Japanese, but they shouldn't have attacked us they should have thought of what the consequences would be.

The problem goes back to World War 1. The Japanese rulers decided to try to expand their empire. World leaders saw this attempt and blockaded Japan. Food, fuel and raw material shipments to the country were cut back. Japan was desperate. They thought that, by bombing Pearl Harbor, they could blockade the American ships that were blockading them. They (the Japanese) knew that America was spread thin trying to control Hitler in Europe. As the European war continued, Hirohito wanted to join forces with Hitler and spread their world domination. Half of the world going to Japan and the other half to Germany.

 

President Roosevelt, who led America into World War 2, died in office, leaving the job to his vice-president Harry S Truman. Truman, coming from the mid-west, was just a "farm boy" that had very little technical knowledge. He was swayed by his advisors to use the bombs to save lives. No one had any idea of what devistating effect the radiation and fallout would have on future generations. All they knew is that the bombs produced a tremendous explosion. It wasn't until the after effects of the bombs were known that there would be more than what they bargained for.

 

The job of giving the authorization to use the weapons was given to Truman, with the understanding that over 2 million lives would be saved. It was an "on the spot" decision to use the weapons; with an unknown outcome of their use.

 

During a crisis, we humans think of nothing but the present, and what temporary effect it will have on us at the present. We don't examine long-term effects. We can only guesstimate. This is what happened in Truman's case. He was told that the use of the bombs would save lives. He wasn't told about long term after effects, like radiation poisoning. (Actually, nobody knew of long term after effects caused by radiation poisoning.) Japan was a testing facility. Long term after effects were studied in depth as best as could have been at the time. The knowledge of the testing and studying was shared with the world.

 

Thirty years after above-ground nuclear testing was banned, strange illnesses started showing up in people downwind of Yucca Flats, Nevada. Rare forms of radiation poisioning were to blame. We still, to this day, do not fully comprehend the after effects of nuclear explosions and the radiation poisoning effecting all of us. If we're still learning today, they sure as hell didn't know a thing 50 years ago.

[edmcgon 0]

It was "the lesser of two evils". There were no options available to the U.S. that did not involve a large loss of life.

[Big_Steve 0]

as a person of japanese ancestry, i can tell u first hand the sorrow i feel when i think how my grandfather and family perished in hiroshima when the atomic bomb was dropped...

 

Click for Spoiler:

their flesh was incinerated to a blackened crisp slipping off their bones all the while their nerve endings seared in unbearable pain as every tissue on their body slipped off their body leaving them a pool of blackened steaming blood...

 

 

 

yet, here we are 50 years later, and children are still feeling the effects of radiation poisining...not only is my grandfather anemic, but children today are born with unusually high levels of birth defects due to radiation caused mutations in their parents and grandparents reproductive organs...

 

despite the fact that american lives were saved, if i have learned anything in my life, i know that there is always another solution to a problem...yes, millions were saved on both sides, but at what cost??? children born today should not have to bear the brunt of the decisions that our grandfathers and great grandfathers made 50 years back... yes as a us born citizen, as was my father and grandfather were as well, i have a deep love for our america, but i still firmly believe that in the case of the atomic bomb, the ends DID NOT justify the means...

You fail to mention the fact that Japanese forces were engaged in the hideous act of using chemical and biological weaponds in China. They infected the chinese people with anthrax and used deadly nerve gas on them as an experiment in an even larger plan to use these hideous weapons of mass destruction on the people of the west coast of the United States ... and the very fact that they did it to the chinese is proof they would have indeed used it on the US.

 

There are many in china that also still suffer from the effects of these bio and chem attacks.

 

The US was neutral in that war ... didn't even militarily come to the aid of her greatest ally untill japan attacked pearl harbor.

[SoCalTom 0]

The US was neutral in that war ... didn't even militarily come to the aid of her greatest ally untill japan attacked pearl harbor.

Not quite. The U S was supplying England with everything from food to people. Many American GIs served in the Royal Air Force until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. When England asked for our help, we gave it. The Brits opened up their country for us to use. We flew fighters and bombers out of there against Hitler. It may be hard to believe, but Russia was an ally against Hitler. (The Big Three: Roosevelt, Curchill and Stalin meeting in Yalta, and discussing war plans.)

 

We, also, sided with the Chinese against Japan. The Flying Tigers were stationed in China, as were a few troops.

 

The only true neutral country was Switzerland.

 

Don't you ever watch the History Channel?

[Yellow_Dragon 0]

The United States Navy was also running convoys in the Atlantic and depth charging U-boats while still "officially" neutral.

[VaBeachGuy 12]

There were so many factors that went into Truman's decision to go ahead with an atomic attack.

 

An interesting note of history that has been debated is that Truman didn't give authorization to drop the first bomb until after it was dropped. The way it's told is that when the bombs were ready they were shipped out to be ready to use. Once the commander in the area had possession of the bombs he set the mission and dropped the first one. The way his orders read that gave him overall command was that he was to usa "any means at his disposal" to defeat the Japanese. He saw the A bombs as just another "means at his disposal". After the first one was dropped Truman was furious but it was done so he had an order written up, back dated it and signed it authorizing it's use... after the fact. He always denied this but it seems logical to me. There weren't the same kind of "controls" on that kind of weapon back then as there are now. There were no set protocols for their use. The commanding General got a new weapon, he had an enemy to defeat so he used his new weapon.

 

Like I said in my first post. You have to go back to the time and consider the whole world situation. Japan would not surrender, a blockade wouldn't work in my opinion for a few reasons. The main reason it wouldn't work is that it would take too long to force them into a surrender. Why would it take too long? What was the big rush? Russia. We did NOT want Russia to all of the sudden come into the war (now that the war in Europe was over) and control Japan. As it was they did enter the war about a week before it ended. Had the Red Army had more time they could have completely controlled Japan or at least part of it, then we'd have North Japan and South Japan. Kind of like North Korea and South Korea, or North Vietnam and South Vietnam.

 

I think that was one of the biggest reasons for dropping the bomb when we did.

 

As for the radiation and long term effects, no one in 1945 knew how the radiation would linger and how it would affect people for generations to come. If anyone did know then there were very few people that did.

 

As for the logic of saying it was "good" to fly the planes into the WTC since it focused the American attention on the problem, well I could agree with that IF because of that new found focus we (The US) are able to prevent terrorists from obtaining any kind of WMD which would cause countless more deaths. IF that were to be the final outcome then those people in the WTC wouldn't have died in vein.

 

To try to go back 60 years and second guess the decision though isn't the right thing to do though. Go back 4 years earlier and ask the question "should Japan have attacked Pearl harbor"? If they hadn't then no Atom bombs would have fallen on their cities. Does Pearl Harbor justify dropping an Atom bomb? Maybe not, not with today's perspective anyway. But in 1945 I think it did justify it.

 

What good could have come out of it though? After the second Atomic bomb was dropped how many more were used in anger on people since then? None. Humanity saw that horror, that destruction and that death and said "Never again". Well then why do we have so many Nuclear bombs now? To deter others from using them, if they use one on in us we can use 2 on them. If they use 2 on us we can use 4 on them. Use 50 on us, we'll use 150 on you. Sounds insane doesn't it? It's prevented their use for 60 years though. If we hadn't had the examples of 1945 then someone somewhere sometime would have used one or more on another people in some other war.

 

Was it a "good thing" to drop them? I can't answer that, I was born in 1969 and not part of that generation. Was it a "necessary" thing? I can only say I think so.