Using the atom bomb

Jul 2009
5,702
420
Opa Locka
#21
I think that it is wrong. You can make up all the reasons for it as you want, but it is still the killing of innocent civilians. Hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children died that day. What need is there to kill innocent people???!!!
They were military targets, we warned the civilians before we attacked and if we hadn't nuked the cities, we'd of carpet bombed them.
 
#22
Whatever victory it may have caused, I don't think dropping the atom bomb was worth the sheer amount of innocent lives lost. People always die in war, of course, and the innocent die in war often. But the numbers involved here are what make it so much worse than normal. That many innocent people did not need to die.
 
Jul 2009
5,702
420
Opa Locka
#23
Whatever victory it may have caused, I don't think dropping the atom bomb was worth the sheer amount of innocent lives lost. People always die in war, of course, and the innocent die in war often. But the numbers involved here are what make it so much worse than normal. That many innocent people did not need to die.
We did the same thing in Dresden, only we killed the city with thousands of bombs while in Japan it only took 2 (1 for each city). As I said, we'd of leveled the cities regardless so whining about how many people (you we told to leave) died is pointless.
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#24
We did the same thing in Dresden, only we killed the city with thousands of bombs while in Japan it only took 2 (1 for each city). As I said, we'd of leveled the cities regardless so whining about how many people (you we told to leave) died is pointless.
It isn't whining and it isn't pointless. Thousands of innocent people died. Not only that, but thousands of others for a long time and potentially still are affected from the radiation.

Using smaller bombs would allow for more precision and fewer civilian deaths. It also would not have nearly as much radiation.
 
Dec 2012
11
0
#25
I think that it was overkill. Totally unnecessary. They should have just accepted their lead as victory. Nuking was a really bad call and I completely disapprove.
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#26
I think that it was overkill. Totally unnecessary. They should have just accepted their lead as victory. Nuking was a really bad call and I completely disapprove.
Well we didn't have a clearcut "lead"- the war was still very much on.
 
Jul 2009
5,702
420
Opa Locka
#27
It isn't whining and it isn't pointless. Thousands of innocent people died. Not only that, but thousands of others for a long time and potentially still are affected from the radiation.

Using smaller bombs would allow for more precision and fewer civilian deaths. It also would not have nearly as much radiation.
But we wouldn't have been precise. We'd of carpet bombed the place like we did Dresden. Same result, more bombs. So I say again, whining about civilian deaths (when the civilians refused to heed our warnings) is pointless.
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#28
But we wouldn't have been precise. We'd of carpet bombed the place like we did Dresden. Same result, more bombs. So I say again, whining about civilian deaths (when the civilians refused to heed our warnings) is pointless.
First of all, I don't think rethinking the mass murder of any peoples is whining. If you do, that is a cultural difference between me and you. If we want to learn from history we should be able to question it and analyze it, not just blindly justify the political sentiment of who "won".

Second, you didn't have to carpet bomb. Even if you did the target radius is smaller and the attacks can be spread out over time reducing civilian casualties.

Third, carpet bombing does not have the radioactive aftermath that causes so much pain and suffering.
 
Jul 2009
5,702
420
Opa Locka
#29
First of all, I don't think rethinking the mass murder of any peoples is whining. If you do, that is a cultural difference between me and you. If we want to learn from history we should be able to question it and analyze it, not just blindly justify the political sentiment of who "won".

Second, you didn't have to carpet bomb. Even if you did the target radius is smaller and the attacks can be spread out over time reducing civilian casualties.

Third, carpet bombing does not have the radioactive aftermath that causes so much pain and suffering.
We didn't leave Dresden standing and we took that city out at the end of the war same as in Japan. Trust me, had we not nuked the cities, we'd of still leveled them and killed everyone. As for the radiation, you have a point in principle but we'd of killed more Japanese and lost more warriors in Operation Overlord then the number of people who were killed or sickened by the radiation.

And if I sound heartless, it's because I have no sympathy for people who's response to being told their city is about to go up in flames is "lol You're bluffing!' They're wouldn't have been civilian deaths if the cities had been evacuated.
 
Dec 2012
518
11
Madison, AL
#30
Whatever victory it may have caused, I don't think dropping the atom bomb was worth the sheer amount of innocent lives lost. People always die in war, of course, and the innocent die in war often. But the numbers involved here are what make it so much worse than normal. That many innocent people did not need to die.
You seem to think these two attacks occurred in isolation.

They didn't. All Japanese cities of medium-size and larger were systematically destroyed by bombing them with high explosives and incendiary bombs to burn then to ash.

The difference was the number of aircraft required to destroy one city.
 
Jul 2009
5,702
420
Opa Locka
#31
You seem to think these two attacks occurred in isolation.

They didn't. All Japanese cities of medium-size and larger were systematically destroyed by bombing them with high explosives and incendiary bombs to burn then to ash.

The difference was the number of aircraft required to destroy one city.
I already made the efficiency argument. they ignored it pretending we had smart bombs in those days.
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#32
As for the radiation, you have a point in principle but we'd of killed more Japanese and lost more warriors in Operation Overlord then the number of people who were killed or sickened by the radiation.
I am not sure you understand the long-term effects of such radiation exposure and the mutations it can cause. Those costs could continue for generations with healthcare costs, etc. This isn't to say regular bombs can't lead to such mutations or costs, but the rate is going to be higher with a nuclear weapon.

And if I sound heartless, it's because I have no sympathy for people who's response to being told their city is about to go up in flames is "lol You're bluffing!' They're wouldn't have been civilian deaths if the cities had been evacuated.
Well I do. Because everyone isn't as educated or understanding as you- often not to a fault of their own. Everyone can't just pick up and leave at every warning and some might literally not have been able to get out of town for one reason or another. This is like justifying a murderer killing you after he said he was going to come to your house and kill you and you didn't leave.
 
Jul 2009
5,702
420
Opa Locka
#33
I am not sure you understand the long-term effects of such radiation exposure and the mutations it can cause. Those costs could continue for generations with healthcare costs, etc. This isn't to say regular bombs can't lead to such mutations or costs, but the rate is going to be higher with a nuclear weapon.



Well I do. Because everyone isn't as educated or understanding as you- often not to a fault of their own. Everyone can't just pick up and leave at every warning and some might literally not have been able to get out of town for one reason or another. This is like justifying a murderer killing you after he said he was going to come to your house and kill you and you didn't leave.
Well if I stayed, didn't bother arming myself and had started the situation (namely killing his family and stealing his stuff) that caused said murder to want me dead, they'd have a point. ;)
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#34
Well if I stayed, didn't bother arming myself and had started the situation (namely killing his family and stealing his stuff) that caused said murder to want me dead, they'd have a point. ;)
Yea except it wasn't you that killed his family and stole stuff- it was your government. And your government armed itself to protect you. You had no choice in either matter. You were an innocent person.
 
Dec 2012
518
11
Madison, AL
#35
Long term radiation problems?

I am not sure you understand the long-term effects of such radiation exposure and the mutations it can cause. Those costs could continue for generations with healthcare costs, etc. This isn't to say regular bombs can't lead to such mutations or costs, but the rate is going to be higher with a nuclear weapon.
From Chernobyl and probably Hiroshima and Nagasaki all of the excess deaths occur within 20 years. And how do you deal with the surprising discovery that animals and plants are often healthier after exposures to radiation?
 
Dec 2012
518
11
Madison, AL
#38
What is an "excess death"? A death is a death.
It is a statistical measure of a population. If five per thousand were expected to die and six per thousand do die the one is considered to be an excess death. That additional effect washes out at around 20 years after the event.

Are you trying to suggest that radiation is good for humans? :rolleyes:
Yes. Exactly. There is an amount of radiation that appears to be beneficial to living organisms. I will see if I can find a link. It has been a few years since I read it.
Here is one. There were dozens: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/nuclear.html
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#39
It is a statistical measure of a population. If five per thousand were expected to die and six per thousand do die the one is considered to be an excess death. That additional effect washes out at around 20 years after the event.
And what's your point with that? It doesn't account for healthcare costs and even then I don't see what you are getting at...


Yes. Exactly. There is an amount of radiation that appears to be beneficial to living organisms. I will see if I can find a link. It has been a few years since I read it.
Here is one. There were dozens: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/nuclear.html
Oh brother. Do you understand what radiation does to you biologically? Why it is so detrimental? It triggers mutations in your DNA and as your cells replicate those mutations get passed on. Eventually they can become lethal. This is the basis of radiation-induced cancer. It is why people who are around x-rays or radioactive materials take such great precautions.

Radiation for the sake of radiation is not good for you. It is used in aggressive cancer therapies to kill cancer cells but in turn you also kill normal cells hence the weakness, etc. that is often associated with such treatments.

The article you pointed to is not only not a scientific study, but it is from a magazine that is funded by a heavily anti-intellectual political group known as LaRouche. It is far from a reliable source. It is quite literally propaganda.
 
#40
The theory of strategic bombing was introduced in the 1920s by Douhet and Mitchell. Instead of bombing armies in the field and navies at sea, the homeland of the enemy would be attacked. The purpose of that was to destroy the enemy's industrial base, thereby limited their ability to produce weapons, and to demoralize the population and lessen their will to continue the war.

The objective of the atomic bombings was to convince the Japanese to surrender, definitely a strategic objective. maybe in way also it is right, to stop the war