[Redstreblo]

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a very controversial thing. Some say that if the war had gone on more and more lives would be lost and fewer people actually died from the bombs than would have died with an invasion. Others believe that the bombings accomplished nothing but death and destruction.

Here is a thread and poll about nuclear weapons in general. I would like to know peoples opinions on the matter 60 years later, when the existence of nuclear weapons has actually caused wars (Iraq...  where were those again?  ) and is a source of fear (OMG what if terrorists nuked NYC?!). Is the number of lives saved in WWII greater than the number of lives lost fighting over the weapons?

Iraq war stats:

100,000 civilians killed

4,800 Casualties

[Snail]

Both sides in WW2 committed horrible atrocities. One side's atrocities just seemed to be more highly publicized than the other's.

[Redstreblo]

hmm, i don't remember putting nukes are sexy option up there...

Is there a ghost in here with us? 

[Mobius]

Agreed.


I have to say, however, that the sacrifice of those Japan citizens who lived in Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved the lives of who knows how many other Japanese people. I heard of Japanese citizens committing suicide as the Americans were getting close so I can only barely imagine what an invasion would have led to.

EDIT: No Snuffleupagus?

[Snail]

Is there a ghost in here with us? 

You have to remember that Nuke is a moderator on this board. xD

I have to say, however, that the sacrifice of those Japan citizens who lived in Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved the lives of who knows how many other Japanese people. I heard of Japanese citizens committing suicide as the Americans were getting close so I can only barely imagine what an invasion would have led to.

The mass bombing of civilians, in any theater, is not justified IMO.

[Mobius]

Yeah, I know it can't be justified but, at the end, it's the number of human victims that counts. The sacrifice of those unfortunate Japanese citizens literally saved most of the others; if the Japanese were already known for committing suicide as the Americans approached their lands, try to imagine what would have happened in case of invasion. How many hundred thousand Japanese citizens would have died before the declaration of peace?

[headdie]

Both sides in WW2 committed horrible atrocities. One side's atrocities just seemed to be more highly publicized than the other's.

the exposure of the public to knowledge about the worst aspects of war comes down to two things geography and politics, for example I understand that there is a greater awareness of Japanese acts in Asia than there is in Europe and i imagine its opposite regarding the European war.  the the same time i understand there is or was heavy restrictions on educating kids in Japan about the pacific war.

To be honest my opinion of dropping of the nukes over Hiroshima and Nagasaki were evil acts that should have resulted in war crimes tribunals for the deliberate targeting of civilians.  At the same time though if they hadn't been dropped we wouldn't have had the stark demonstration of the unforgivable power of these weapons thus it would had made it easier for politicians to order their launch during some periods of the Cold War and where would we be then.

[Snail]

Douglas MacArthur is also a douche. Seriously. Nuke happy ****dick. Drop bombs on China why don't you.

[headdie]

Douglas MacArthur is also a douche. Seriously. Nuke happy ****dick. Drop bombs on China why don't you.

isnt karajorma over there atm????

[Snail]

Yeah.

(Douglas MacArthur wanted to drop nukes on Chinese cities to stop them helping the North Koreans during the Korean war)

[Redstreblo]

See? With the existence of nuclear weapons lots of people are talking about using them as a first strike weapon. Lets solve our problems by nuking China or Korea. This is exactly why nuclear weapons are bad, they promote killing lots of innocent civilians to try to get a war done and over with quickly. I don't think people realize all the consequences involved with nuking another country. Not only do you pose the risk of the country using its own nuclear arsenal against you, but there is also nuclear fallout to consider. With nuclear weapons, just like with war, there are no winners. Only losers.

[Snail]

That's why MacArthur got sacked. Because Truman wasn't retarded.

[Redstreblo]

Ahhhh!! nuke! leave the damn poll alone!!     

[Snail]

rofl

[übermetroid]

I am just going to point out that in war you fight to win. If people die, they die.  That is what war is.  Civilians are the perfect target.

Is there a ghost in here with us? 

You have to remember that Nuke is a moderator on this board. xD

I have to say, however, that the sacrifice of those Japan citizens who lived in Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved the lives of who knows how many other Japanese people. I heard of Japanese citizens committing suicide as the Americans were getting close so I can only barely imagine what an invasion would have led to.

The mass bombing of civilians, in any theater, is not justified IMO.

[Redstreblo]

and people voted for the bogus answers    I thought that maybe people would take a topic like this a little more seriously. 

[Snail]

I try to be apolitical.

[Nuke]

see we have this little thing called mutually assured destruction. you nuke us we nuke you and we have so many of them the world will end. i credit it for preventing WW3. unfortunately it had the side effect of making people not want to fire their warheads. in terms of war casualties the nuke is dwarfed heavily by the ak-47. and the weapon that racked up the greatest number of american kills ever was probably the rifled muskets used in the civil war. sad really.

[Snail]

What about helicopters

[Nuke]

most helicopters are used for transport. attack helicopters are mostly just used to take out tanks. helicopters dont really have the loiter capability for close air support. but there's a plane for that.