World War II

Was the nuclear bombing on Nagasaki and Hiroshima justified?

Justification thread? Nuclear bombing on Nagasaki and Hiroshima thread? World War II thread?

Any way, don’t take it out of context. The entire world war was damaging for humanity. Justification is subjective, all I can say is that I disagree the world war should have started, but the ones who did obviously thought it should have.

According to wiki 140,000 people died in Hiroshima and 80,000 people died in Nagasaki. This may seem like an awfully high figure to justify, however I think it can be done. The Japanese had been preparing defences and fortifications for months on the mainland of Japan. Even though the cream of their armed forces were mostly dead or wounded, undoubtedly there would have been dogged resistance. Thousands of land mines had been deployed all along the coast of Japan. This would have meant the deaths of thousands of both Allied and Japanese. The bombing prevented this, so yes, in my mind, it was justified.

The firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden caused similar casualty figures.

If they were the ones who had the bomb, they would have dropped it on you without a moment’s hesitation.

It was a matter of time before the war got outa hand it was justified gooks deserved it

Was the war justified in the first place? Until what extent is it justified to fight back?

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

Was the war justified in the first place? Until what extent is it justified to fight back?

When madmen and degenerated racists like Hitler are ruling an agressive military superpower, taking whatever countries he want, breaking treaties all the way. Imagine if all Europe just tolerated Hitlers offensive without resistance. Imagine a nazi-europe. Brrrrrrr…

Originally posted by iMachine:

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

Was the war justified in the first place? Until what extent is it justified to fight back?

When madmen and degenerated racists like Hitler are ruling an agressive military superpower, taking whatever countries he want, breaking treaties all the way. Imagine if all Europe just tolerated Hitlers offensive without resistance. Imagine a nazi-europe. Brrrrrrr…

Europe did tolerated Hitler to begin with and that is why he got so out of hand.

Originally posted by SpudSr:

Originally posted by iMachine:

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

Was the war justified in the first place? Until what extent is it justified to fight back?

When madmen and degenerated racists like Hitler are ruling an agressive military superpower, taking whatever countries he want, breaking treaties all the way. Imagine if all Europe just tolerated Hitlers offensive without resistance. Imagine a nazi-europe. Brrrrrrr…

Europe did tolerated Hitler to begin with and that is why he got so out of hand.

Just my point. If Hitler was stopped to begin with, things would have got much easier. But of course, it is easier said than done.

Before we all jump on the “Nazi, bad” bandwagon, why don’t we take a look at how badly Germany was screwed over after WWI and the multitude of sly maneuvers by the Allies that contributed as much to the situations as the Axis.

yes.

Originally posted by SaintAjora:

Before we all jump on the “Nazi, bad” bandwagon, why don’t we take a look at how badly Germany was screwed over after WWI and the multitude of sly maneuvers by the Allies that contributed as much to the situations as the Axis.

I agree, France had a lot to do with Germany’s economic state after WWI. However, I think that Hilter would have risen to power even if France and the other Allies had been less harsh with the Treaty of Versailles. The Germans still would have had their pride injured from the defeat in WWI.

Also, Hirohito and Mussolini would still have risen to power.

Japan’s defeat in WWII was obvious. The USA didn’t use nuclear arms to speed up the end of war. It was a demonstration of American domination to the Soviet Union. Right after the war was over, America was already developing a plan to wipe out the USSR in 1950s.

I think if the US hadn’t done it, other countries would be less afraid to press the button when M.A.D. was in place, which might have meant Armageddon o__O

Before we all jump on the “Nazi, bad” bandwagon, why don’t we take a look at how badly Germany was screwed over after WWI and the multitude of sly maneuvers by the Allies that contributed as much to the situations as the Axis.

I’m assuming it’s the Treaty of Versailles you’re referring to. It did indeed screw them over, but it wasn’t exactly sly. I’d say the main contribution the allies made to starting the war was the policy of appeasement during the 30s and the ineffectiveness of the League of Nations.

Originally posted by SaintAjora:

Before we all jump on the “Nazi, bad” bandwagon, why don’t we take a look at how badly Germany was screwed over after WWI and the multitude of sly maneuvers by the Allies that contributed as much to the situations as the Axis.

yes Germany was completely screwed after WW1 and Hitler and the NAzis stopped that but Britian and France should never have allowed Germany to break the Treaty of Versailles no matter how unfair it was because Hitler saw it as a weakness. Then again hindsight is a very usful thing

yes Germany was completely screwed after WW1 and Hitler and the NAzis stopped that but Britian and France should never have allowed Germany to break the Treaty of Versailles no matter how unfair it was because Hitler saw it as a weakness. Then again hindsight is a very usful thing

The allies shouldn’t have stuck to the Treaty. Instead they should have let Germany enter the League of Nations immediately, and revised a new Treaty with the Germans part of the negotiations. The biggest problem was that it was a ’’Diktat’’, a dictated peace and the Germans, rightly, felt wronged by this.

Total war is the only justifiable war strategy. Anything less is disguisting, as it just prolongs the war, which is always a bad idea. In my opinion, all targets are legitimate, and whatever weapons you have, you should use them. Adding rules to war is just stupid.

So yes, the U.S. was justified in bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

In my opinion, all targets are legitimate

Say that to their faces:

http://www.relativesforjustice.com/carol-ann-kelly.htm
http://www.relativesforjustice.com/julie-livingstone.htm
http://www.relativesforjustice.com/geraldine-mckeown.htm

And so many more: http://www.relativesforjustice.com/the-victims.htm

Terrible things happen in war, I don’t understand why it’s necessary to argue about it many years later when we could be discussing the current situation in the middle east, or anything else going on. I think the adam bomb was an absolutely terrible thing to do, and something that was as evil in simple theory as what the Japanese did in China, but let’s not forget is also set the war to abrupt ending.

If mankind has no established moral code, except to which each individual himself believes, then why are you pushing your beliefs and morals on Kasha? I hope you are not hinting that Kasha believe in the same values as you, that seems pretty “Christian-like.”

Originally posted by pacaholic:

If mankind has no established moral code, except to which each individual himself believes, then why are you pushing your beliefs and morals on kasha?

There’s a difference between pushing your morals on to someone else and debating about them.

As someone who is a fan of the eastern front in WW2 and bloody carnage, I have always been sad that the USA dropped the bombs. It would have been more entertaining for WW2 fans like myself if they launched a ground invasion. Lots more miniature figurines and magazines, fan shows about the invasion, etc.,

Originally posted by Vanguarde:

As someone who is a fan of the eastern front in WW2 and bloody carnage, I have always been sad that the USA dropped the bombs. It would have been more entertaining for WW2 fans like myself if they launched a ground invasion. Lots more miniature figurines and magazines, fan shows about the invasion, etc.,

Been reading uncyclopedia? It’s a film right?