Lest we forget - Hiroshima & Nagasaki

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
That doesn't change the fact that dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki not only saved millions of lives, Japanese, Korean, American, and Soviet, but arguably pervented WW3 from happening, saving billions of lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't a fact, it's an assumption about what would have happened if an action had not been taken, used to justify the action taken. Similarly, I could simply say "If I don't kill you, you could go on to kill dozens of people, so I am justified in killing you."

[VarlosZ]

Seems to me that people upset over the A-bombs are missing the mark. Their use at least had a good chance to end the war quickly, thus saving more lives than they cost. The fire-bombing of Tokyo and other Japanese cities, OTOH, was sometimes even more deadly to civilians, and had virtually no chance of ending the war quickly.

[owsley]

What do people think about the idea of demonstrating the US's atomic capability on some more remote naval island first instead of going straight for populated cities? I realize that the hawks will say "The japanese were so crazy and fanatical they would have ignored something like that" but that isnt really a fulfilling answer to me, what would the downside been of trying it?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
WTF is with all this turn the other cheek stuff.

"Yeah they killed your family but the lord says turn the other cheek" Screw that.

We should seriously make a worldwidestatement.

DON'T ATTACK US ANYMORE

And if they do we go micheal masden resiovoir dogs on them.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
But that's not going to happen. I personally NEVER forsee the cycle of violence ending. Ever

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't either, with people like you in control of military power.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup, you just confirmed that you are French depite the Toronto address. With people like YOU in control of military power we can just surrender.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought you were going to lay off the senseless personal attacks when you didn't have anything worthwhile to say?

[/ QUOTE ]

LMAO. Try reading your post that I was responding to, Mr. Pot.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
The children are unfortunate casualties of war, but put the blame where it lies - with their parents.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, for example, when the 911 attackers killed children in the WTC that was the fault of the parents, who elected a government that provoked the terrorists? Yes or no, please.

[Nonfiction]

[ QUOTE ]

This isn't a fact, it's an assumption about what would have happened if an action had not been taken, used to justify the action taken. Similarly, I could simply say "If I don't kill you, you could go on to kill dozens of people, so I am justified in killing you."

[/ QUOTE ]
You would be justified if I was a mass murderer who had already killed hundreds of people and said "Hey I'm gonna go kill more people." So yeah, good analogy.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
What do people think about the idea of demonstrating the US's atomic capability on some more remote naval island first instead of going straight for populated cities? I realize that the hawks will say "The japanese were so crazy and fanatical they would have ignored something like that" but that isnt really a fulfilling answer to me, what would the downside been of trying it?

[/ QUOTE ]

How fast could the US produce bombs in 1945? I thought we dropped the only two we had.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
What do people think about the idea of demonstrating the US's atomic capability on some more remote naval island first instead of going straight for populated cities? I realize that the hawks will say "The japanese were so crazy and fanatical they would have ignored something like that" but that isnt really a fulfilling answer to me, what would the downside been of trying it?

[/ QUOTE ]

The US only had 2 atomic bombs at the time (plus the one used in the Trinity test). Also, the logistics of a remote island test are a little weird. ("Dear Japanese leaders, the United States invites you to a fun-filled and terrifying weekend at Bimini Atoll. Come with us and we promise we won't kidnap or murder you.") Furthermore, only one of the two bomb designs had actually been verified by testing. That would put the demonstrators in the awkward position of either using an unproved design that might fizzle and look stupid or using the only extant bomb that was known to work.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
You would be justified if I was a mass murderer who had already killed hundreds of people and said "Hey I'm gonna go kill more people." So yeah, good analogy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hold on - would I be justified as retaliation for the crimes you've committed, or for the hypothetical crimes you might commit in the future? Those are two very different things.

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
What do people think about the idea of demonstrating the US's atomic capability on some more remote naval island first instead of going straight for populated cities? I realize that the hawks will say "The japanese were so crazy and fanatical they would have ignored something like that" but that isnt really a fulfilling answer to me, what would the downside been of trying it?

[/ QUOTE ]

How about the fact that we had exactly two bombs, neither of which were guaranteed to work, and conducting a deonstration that failed would likely have prolonged the war, not shortened it? Not only that, but even if it worked, the Japanese could have bet we didn't have any more, and now you're down to one bomb. There was real fear the Japanese would call the US bluff after the first one, with the Japanese knowing what it would take to make a bomb, figuring there was no way the US had more. That's one reason the second one was dropped so quickly, to make it look like we had a large supply.

If you had 10 of them, a demonstration might have been warranted. If you've got two, not so much.