Ask Your Question today
A bit controversial but I was wondering how you guys feel about this topic. Discussions are welcome.
| Yes, it was the only way to win the war | 32 | |
| No, the loss of thousands of innocent people are never worth it | 23 |
In my honest opinion, ending a war by killing thousands of civilians is never justified.
However, I do understand the reason why they did it. The bombs certainly ended the war.
Absolutely not. I think it would have been permissable to use on military targets though given the conditions of that war.
That about it like this if Japan had of developed nuclear weapons and nuked Los Angeles. Are you really telling me that it wouldn't have been thought of as a war crime? Would it have been justified?
If not then surely America's use of nuclear weapons against civilians is also unjust.
My thoughts exactly. As an American, I feel ashamed that the American military at the time had to resort to killing thousands of innocent people. I sincerely believe that was one of the ultimate war crime in recent history. We used two of the most destructive weapons in the world on a ISLAND country. The sheer fact that killing thousands of innocent people didn't boggle the American military's mind is something I can never comprehend.
Unfortunately wars are won through civilian deaths whether its right or wrong thats jst how it is
I don't see why it couldn't have been publicly demonstrated in a relatively unpopulated area.
It should've never been used on civilians. The most I could justify is if we dropped one on a military target. But, the past is the past, no going back now, the best we can do is learn from it and move on.
My reaction is that it was unnecessary, but then again I can't be sure what would've happened otherwise...
Japan would have kept fighting until they had no troops left.
This would mean the death of many more US soldiers.
The USA had to prevent this and took the lives of civilians instead.
"Japan would have kept fighting until they had no troops left."
Is that just an opinion or is it based on some evidence?
From my understanding the only reason they did it was to end everything. Considering how hard both sides were going not surprised. Japan and Germany are a threat to be reckoned with.
I think it's a fact, that's what my grandpa said too, long ago, and he was in WWII. RIGHT in it, his ship was hit by a kamakaze in the Pacific. He was a Naval officer. I've gathered that impression from reading about the Japanese and other Asian culture, WWII, and from hearing other veterans say the same. Many militaries don't retreat untill they absolutely have to, what that meant back then and what that means now may be 2 different things. Especially when you're talking about the level of knowledge of (repercussions of) atomic bombs from now to then.
That's true. Surrender was unthinkable to the Japanese. So unthinkable that Suzuki literally fell on his sword. But that's not to say they didn't consider it before their cities were leveled. They approached China late in 1944 and Russia in the early summer of 1945. In the latter case, Russia was persuaded by the US not to accept Japan's surrender. There were multiple reasons for this.
- Russia was, at the time, in a better position to "acquire" Japanese spoils. Japan knew a surrender would be desirable to the Russians which is why they offered
- The US was close to developing a weapon which would avenge Pearl Harbor
- That same weapon would establish US dominance (over Russia) once war ended
I understand what the Japanese did during the war but, because one country commits atrocities, that doesn't mean every other country has automatically acted supremely ethically. The first casualty of war is the truth.
well from a personal note i would say no, for the reason,as said already too many were killed, but it did make japan back off, in that sence i think it was the only thing to do at the time, still think that too many were killed.