We Were Right to Bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki

[Serano]

I just got done watching a video from one of my favorite YouTube channel, Vsauce. A great channel to be sure, but they came out with a video that ... while not explicitly saying so, had the underlying message that it was wrong for us to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


Can any of you, tell me an intelligent reason, for not dropping the atomic bombs besides saying "oh, look at all the people that died" junk??

 

[IDontWriteTragedies]

I can think of several reasons we shouldn't have tried out the bomb considering the major concern that the atmosphere would ignite due to it at the time.


Of course, it didn't and was proven wrong later. But we shouldn't have taken that kind of risk. The bombings themselves I have no objection over, just the risk that all life could have been destroyed because of a bomb.

 

[Ineffectivd]

First off, were*.


No objections to that, I'm sure. So I'll continue.


Right, yes, you Americans were, as Japan had become a threat to the Allied stance. Their hold on Singapore and major areas facilitated several areas of attack, and Malaysia was more or less f**ked. Basically, your bombing was done in order to win against the Axis, whereupon the sentence "Ends justify the means" come into play.


But take another good look, Amerikann schwein (that was a joke. I hope you take jokes.). The nuclear effects still devastate Japan up until today. Sure, the Japanese were a bunch of pickles to their quarries, but we're talking nuclear fallout here. And two bombs, no less. Morally, this action is on the completely and utterly wrong end of the scale. I remember the Japanese weren't too much of pickles to the Malays and the Indians, just the Chinese. However, the act of bombing destroyed every man, woman and child in Japan, regardless of ethnicity. I am not defending the Japanese, I am merely saying that this bombing is wrong because it encompasses the sins of the other sinner completely. For a largely Christian community, you guys don't do a lot of "Forgive those who have sinned against us" part.


Inb4 Objection, relevance? to the last statement.

 

[Behind The Mask]

I don't think it was right to bomb Hiroshima or Nagasaki, and that's just my opinion. I don't like trying to explain my reasons to people, simply because I'm not good at doing that (I will go on and on, and occasionally get off track) However as @Ineffectivd said:

The nuclear effects still devastate Japan up until today.

I feel the damage we caused out weighs the damage they caused. If you look it from a perspective of "who did what" and not "what each side did" (that was poorly phrased.. my point being that if you look at it without bias or without the "our side" vs "their side") Then Pearl Harbor is nothing in comparison to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Honestly, even if it was justified I still think I would still say it wasn't just out of spite since I do not have much pride in this country, but that is a different discussion for a different time...

 

[Serano]

Finally! I knew if I put a post that had no factual or logical backing that it would elicit the desired response, and finally force an actual debate. I do thank those for participating in this discussion/debate. Without further ado, allow me now to enlighten you on the fallacy of you argument.


To be able to properly proceed, a little history lesson is in order. After the battle of Leyte Gulf and the liberation of the Philippines in 1944, the Americans turned their attention to the inevitable invasion of the Japanese homeland. Their first step towards that goal was Iwo Jima.

Iwo Jima was strategically important: it provided an air base for Japanese fighter planes to intercept long-range B-29 Superfortress bombers, provided a haven for Japanese naval units in dire need of any support available and was used to stage air attacks on the Mariana Islands from November 1944 through January 1945. The capture of Iwo Jima would eliminate these problems and provide a staging area for Operation Downfall - the eventual invasion of the Japanese Home Islands. The distance of B-29 raids could (hypothetically) be cut in half, and a base would be available for P-51 Mustang fighters to escort and protect the bombers.

A battle which intelligence experts predicted would last a week, turned into a five week of hell on earth. Interestingly enough, the battle of Iwo Jima was the only battle in the Pacific Campaign where the Americans received more casualties than the Japanese. Out of the 80 or so Medal of Honors that were awarded in the entirety of the Pacific Campaign, 24 was giving out during this one engagement (and half of them were posthumously.)

For as bad as things were for the Americans, the death toll for the Japanese was ... apocalyptic is the only word I can think to describe it. Out of a total of 22,000 Japanese that were deployed onto the island to resist the Americans, Only 216 Japanese soldiers survived. The rest either were killed in battle (like General Kuribayashi who led a night time raid on sleeping marines and air force ground crews with the intent to inflict as much causalities the end) or commited suicide instead of surrendering.

You see, the Japanese knew they couldn't win the battle. General Kuribayashi, who is celebrated as a brilliant military commander not only by the Japanese, but by the US Marine Corps as well, knew he wouldn't survive the battle. All that Kuribayashi could hope for, was to delay the Americans as long as possible and hope to break their will to fight. He wrote his family in September of 1944 and said, "It must be destiny that we as a family must face this. Please accept this and stand tall with the children at your side. I will be with you".

And if Iwo Jima wasn't bad enough, only a few months later we invaded Okinawa. This was to be the staging place for Operation Downfall. (There's a lot of debate as to why Iwo Jima was conquered and then followed by Okinawa when they achieved the same goals, but that's another debate entirely.) Referred to as the Rain of Steel in japan (Typhoon of Steel in the US) due to the sheer ferocity of the fighting and the overwhelming number of men, ships and weapons that the US brought to bear on the tiny island.


Below are just some of the statistics that outline the barbarity of the battle:

• Mainland Japan lost 77,166 soldiers, who were either killed or committed suicide
  
• The Allies suffered 14,009 deaths (with an estimated total of more than 65,000 casualties of all kinds).
  
• Simultaneously, 149,193 local civilians were killed or committed suicide, more than one third of the total local population. Most of these were due to the civilians being told that they would be raped and violated by the invading American soldiers.
  

Now, put yourself in the shoes of the American Political and Military leadership in July 1945. You have just come off the two deadliest battles, each more deadly than the last, as you drew closer to the Japanese Home Islands. The potential death tolls for both sides are astronomical. In fact, we are still using purple hearts (the award given to wounded soldiers) that were made for Operation Downfall.

And if you really are so appalled at all the civilians that were killed, look at how many civilians who were killed or committed suicide on Okinawa. Then translate those loses to the entire nation of Japan. The population of wartime Japan was somewhere around 70 million people. Imagine if a third of those committed suicide or were killed as a result of the battle; that would be a genocide of over 20 million people.

This is my problem with people who are opposed to the bombings because they see these two bombs as somehow more horrendous then any other ordinance of war. If you could prevent the death of tens of millions of lives, why would not go ahead and do everything possible to prevent such a catastrophe. By the way, it's not like Hiroshima and Nagasaki are ghost towns today, so let's throw out that garbage of radiation bull.


Hiroshima Today

I have a lot more to add to this, but for now, I'll let those who wish to respond go ahead and rebuttal (if you can) before I continue with this lesson of why the atomic bombs were not only necessary, but the only humane option option.

 

[Behind The Mask]

Finally! I knew if I put a post that had no factual or logical backing that it would elicit the desired response, and finally force an actual debate. Without further ado, allow me now to enlighten you on the fallacy of you argument.
To be able to properly proceed, a little history lesson is in order. After the battle of Leyte Gulf and the liberation of the Philippines in 1944, the Americans turned their attention to the inevitable invasion of the Japanese homeland. Their first step towards that goal was Iwo Jima.

Iwo Jima was strategically important: it provided an air base for Japanese fighter planes to intercept long-range B-29 Superfortress bombers, provided a haven for Japanese naval units in dire need of any support available and was used to stage air attacks on the Mariana Islands from November 1944 through January 1945. The capture of Iwo Jima would eliminate these problems and provide a staging area for Operation Downfall - the eventual invasion of the Japanese Home Islands. The distance of B-29 raids could (hypothetically) be cut in half, and a base would be available for P-51 Mustang fighters to escort and protect the bombers.

A battle which intelligence experts predicted would last a week, turned into a five week of hell on earth. Interestingly enough, the battle of Iwo Jima was the only battle in the Pacific Campaign where the Americans received more casualties than the Japanese. Out of the 80 or so Medal of Honors that were awarded in the entirety of the Pacific Campaign, 24 was giving out during this one engagement (and half of them were posthumously.)

For as bad as things were for the Americans, the death toll for the Japanese was ... apocalyptic is the only word I can think to describe it. Out of a total of 22,000 Japanese that were deployed onto the island to resist the Americans, Only 216 Japanese soldiers survived. The rest either were killed in battle (like General Kuribayashi who led a night time raid on sleeping marines and air force ground crews with the intent to inflict as much causalities the end) or commited suicide instead of surrendering.

You see, the Japanese knew they couldn't win the battle. General Kuribayashi, who is celebrated as a brilliant military commander not only by the Japanese, but by the US Marine Corps as well, knew he wouldn't survive the battle. All that Kuribayashi could hope for, was to delay the Americans as long as possible and hope to break their will to fight. He wrote his family in September of 1944 and said, "It must be destiny that we as a family must face this. Please accept this and stand tall with the children at your side. I will be with you".

And if Iwo Jima wasn't bad enough, only a few months later we invaded Okinawa. This was to be the staging place for Operation Downfall. (There's a lot of debate as to why Iwo Jima was conquered and then followed by Okinawa when they achieved the same goals, but that's another debate entirely.) Referred to as the Rain of Steel in japan (Typhoon of Steel in the US) due to the sheer ferocity of the fighting and the overwhelming number of men, ships and weapons that the US brought to bear on the tiny island.


Below are just some of the statistics that outline the barbarity of the battle:

• Mainland Japan lost 77,166 soldiers, who were either killed or committed suicide
  
• The Allies suffered 14,009 deaths (with an estimated total of more than 65,000 casualties of all kinds).
  
• Simultaneously, 149,193 local civilians were killed or committed suicide, more than one third of the total local population. Most of these were due to the civilians being told that they would be raped and violated by the invading American soldiers.
  

Now, put yourself in the shoes of the American Political and Military leadership in July 1945. You have just come off the two deadliest battles, each more deadly than the last, as you drew closer to the Japanese Home Islands. The potential death tolls for both sides are astronomical. In fact, we are still using purple hearts (the award given to wounded soldiers) that were made for Operation Downfall.

And if you really are so appalled at all the civilians that were killed, look at how many civilians who were killed or committed suicide on Okinawa. Then translate those loses to the entire nation of Japan. The population of wartime Japan was somewhere around 70 million people. Imagine if a third of those committed suicide or were killed as a result of the battle; that would be a genocide of over 20 million people.

This is my problem with people who are opposed to the bombings because they see these two bombs as somehow more horrendous then any other ordinance of war. If you could prevent the death of tens of millions of lives, why would not go ahead and do everything possible to prevent such a catastrophe. By the way, it's not like Hiroshima and Nagasaki are ghost towns today, so let's throw out that garbage of radiation bull.


Hiroshima Today

I have a lot more to add to this, but for now, I'll let those who wish to respond go ahead and rebuttal (if you can) before I continue with this lesson of why the atomic bombs were not only necessary, but the only humane option option.

You talk about killing all those people like it's something to be proud of, and this is a debate not you "teaching" us.


Anyways I still stick to my argument earlier and I still think it was wrong. "Humane" or not, I still think it was wrong. I know I probably sound like some sort of pacifist but that's just my honest opinion.

 

[Serano]

[QUOTE="Behind The Mask]You talk about killing all those people like it's something to be proud of, and this is a debate not you "teaching" us.
Anyways I still stick to my argument earlier and I still think it was wrong. "Humane" or not, I still think it was wrong. I know I probably sound like some sort of pacifist but that's just my honest opinion.

[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I probably did come off as condescending. And because of that I do apologize. I would also ask you whether the alternative would be better? On one hand, you have the option of an invasion that would inevitably cost millions of lives. On the other, you drop two bombs, on two cities, and end a war within days.


That's my issue with people who argue that we shouldn't of. It's not to say that I am "proud" we did it, but I know that knowing what the alternative is, I would rather choose the one that saves the most lives.

 

[Behind The Mask]

Again, I do no look at this as a point of "our side" vs "their side" so the reasoning of "there were no better alternatives" doesn't quite make sense to me (I get what your saying but I don't get how you can think of that as some sort of valid reason). What if it had been the other way around? The Japanese drop 2 atomic bombs on the U.S. and then went and said "Well there weren't any better alternatives.." as if that somehow makes it all okay.


I do not mean this to be insulting, but to me that kind of reasoning is completely insensitive.

 

[Cthulhos]

[QUOTE="Behind The Mask]Again, I do no look at this as a point of "our side" vs "their side" so the reasoning of "there were no better alternatives" doesn't quite make sense to me (I get what your saying but I don't get how you can think of that as some sort of valid reason). What if it had been the other way around? The Japanese drop 2 atomic bombs on the U.S. and then went and said "Well there weren't any better alternatives.." as if that somehow makes it all okay.
I do not mean this to be insulting, but to me that kind of reasoning is completely insensitive.

[/QUOTE]
Like what, No. . . it might be insensitive, but his signature says it all. He is the Tactician. In this case, the use of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not just a military tactic, but a life saving one.

 

[Behind The Mask]

Like what, No. . . it might be insensitive, but his signature says it all. He is the Tactician. In this case, the use of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not just a military tactic, but a life saving one.

Not for the people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki...

 

[Cthulhos]

[QUOTE="Behind The Mask]Not for the people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki...

[/QUOTE]
Not for the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but for the rest of Japan, probably.

 

[Serano]

[QUOTE="Behind The Mask]Again, I do no look at this as a point of "our side" vs "their side" so the reasoning of "there were no better alternatives" doesn't quite make sense to me (I get what your saying but I don't get how you can think of that as some sort of valid reason). What if it had been the other way around? The Japanese drop 2 atomic bombs on the U.S. and then went and said "Well there weren't any better alternatives.." as if that somehow makes it all okay.
I do not mean this to be insulting, but to me that kind of reasoning is completely insensitive.

[/QUOTE]
Actually, had the roles been reversed, Japan would of been complete "justified" in dropping the atomic bombs. Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't about revenge for pearl harbor, it was about bringing the war to a quick conclusion.

Not for the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but for the rest of Japan, probably.

Well said. The problem with this argument is that it ignores the fact that at the time, we were in the largest war in the history of mankind. It was either invade Japan and have millions die, causing the war to drag on, or ending the war quickly with two savage strikes. And like I said, those two cities aren't exactly barren wastelands at the moment. Hiroshima has over two million people in it for goodness sakes.

 

[Mitheral]

I have to agree with Aerodom here wholeheartedly. The US President face faced with the options of a sustained conventional war versus nuclear assault. He also considered the impact of one versus two cities attacked. Conventional war - especially in those days was almost a mathematical issue. The final decision was based on the nuclear option resulting in few casualties and a shorter war.


War isn't humane to begin with. It is killing plain and simple. The US tried to stay out of that war. But you cannot win a defensive war forever. It was a simple matter of us or them. If it had been a boxing match you could say the US chose to go for the knockout in the 5th round rather than fighting the whole 13. In the end the the results were less inhumane and both nations recovered faster.

 

[Dak]

I agree with Mitheral. The US wanted to stay out of this war. We were training our troops just in case something happened, and we still didn't have enough. The US had to impose a draft which conscripted. Millions of men, who were basically pulled aside and said, "Hey your in the army now." Weather they liked it or not.


Not to mention that on pearl harbor, a bad days in american history. It was on a sunday, it was their day of rest, and the japaness just started to drop bombs and blow shit up, and I am not saying it was revenge. I wanted to point that out.


Now mitheral raises the point of they did it to end the war. This is true, the war was raging on, it started a few years before the drop. The moral of the troops were starting to drop. So the US decided to come in, not like a wrecking ball, but like. "Look Mr.President, we have the chance to end to the war with this.( He referes to the A-bomb.)."


I like that you compared it to a boxing match. I was going to do something like that. If you have ever watched a boxing match, after a few rounds, the fighters start to get tired. Say one is Japan and the other the US. The US fighter sees and opportunity to knock the other fighter out, he is going to take it. So in conclusion I say that yes, we were right. But at what cost, not only in the pacific, but in europe as well. I get the whole hitler thing, so if we didn't drop them then we couldn't divert most of our power over to the nazis.


It is like WW1 in a sense. The Germans, now you don't want to fight a two war front, cause it would take to long, plus you have the chance of losing. Plus your splitting your forces, which you don't want to do. I know I am getting off topic. So in the end I say. "The ends justify the means."

 

[Behind The Mask]

Actually, had the roles been reversed, Japan would of been complete "justified" in dropping the atomic bombs. Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't about revenge for pearl harbor, it was about bringing the war to a quick conclusion.
Well said. The problem with this argument is that it ignores the fact that at the time, we were in the largest war in the history of mankind. It was either invade Japan and have millions die, causing the war to drag on, or ending the war quickly with two savage strikes. And like I said, those two cities aren't exactly barren wastelands at the moment. Hiroshima has over two million people in it for goodness sakes.

Okay, I can see some of what you're saying. As a military tactic and/or strategy (not sure how else to describe it sorry if that's a bad choice in words) it was a smart move on the U.S's part. But as far as moral standards, which is different for everyone and this is just mine, it was wrong.


~My opinion overall hasn't changed because my morals mean more to me than pretty much everything else (I'm not religious or anything so my moral code is all I have as far as beliefs hence it's importance to me)


Anyways, quite an interesting discussion this has been..

 

[Mitheral]

Hmm, this post will illustrate my point about the cost of lives. And if you do play the video, pay attention to the numbers. They do not represent military casualties - but rather the deaths of civilians in the millions.


http://rpnation.com/index.php?threads/religion-is-not-the-main-cause-of-war.15788/unread

 

[Serano]

@Behind The Mask @Mitheral


When I brought this subject up with my girlfriend, she also gave me a similar response. She agreed that, while it was necessary, dropping the bombs might of been the right thing to do to end to war, but not the "moral" or "good" way to end the war.


My answer to her, (and to Mitheral's point) is the same as my answer to you. What makes one form of warfare moral over another? Why is it more moral to invade the Japan, risking millions of casualties on both sides, rather than dropping two bombs and killing 150,000 civilians and ending the war in nine days.


In my opinion, war is by it's nature immoral. If there is a moral action that can be done in war, then is it is the one that ends the war the quickest and minimizes suffering.

 

[Cthulhos]

@Behind The Mask @Mitheral
When I brought this subject up with my girlfriend, she also gave me a similar response. She agreed that, while it was necessary, dropping the bombs might of been the right thing to do to end to war, but not the "moral" or "good" way to end the war.


My answer to her, (and to Mitheral's point) is the same as my answer to you. What makes one form of warfare moral over another? Why is it more moral to invade the Japan, risking millions of casualties on both sides, rather than dropping two bombs and killing 150,000 civilians and ending the war in nine days.


In my opinion, war is by it's nature immoral. If there is a moral action that can be done in war, then is it is the one that ends the war the quickest and minimizes suffering.

Sadly, war is evil. Unfortunately, what makes war so evil is that it forces the good to be warriors.

 

[FoxxMann]

I wish people would take the bombings in context, there was a war going on, Japan senselessly killed thousands of U.S. civilians and soldiers, during Pearl Harbor, and the rest of the war. America also gave the Japanese people a warning, they airdropped fliers urging the Japanese people to appeal to the government for an end to the conflict.

 

[bettsyboy]

If the bombs weren't dropped then japan would have never surrendered and never signed the surrender and protection treaty which means the Chinese would have crossed over and committed wholesale genocide against the Japanese, and no one would have lifted a finger to help them.


The dropping of the bombs was like a man cutting off his own arm so he can escape a deadly situation, a painful and horrible thing to be done but in the long run it was the least destructive option on the table (now isn't it a dim situation when 2 nukes are the least destructive alternative?) But that was Japan's situation at the time.

 

[Lore]

I don't understand why people keep bringing up whether or not U.S. dropping the bombs was a moral act or not. It was a war. There is NOTHING moral about war. Have you ever heard the old adage 'war is Hell'? There is no peace in Hell. There is no justice in Hell. There is only suffering and death. To say that America dropping those bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was immoral is to say that EVERYONE involved made an immoral decision when they became a part of the conflict.


Was it immoral for the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor? Irrelevant. It was war. Was it immoral for the U.S. to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Irrelevant. It was war. I see a lot of comments here that are talking about morality during war but do these people know what war really is? Do they understand what goes through a person's head during those moments when their lives are at risk? And I'm not talking about the sort of fear you feel when you have a bad car accident and you almost died. That's an accident. I'm talking about the sort of fear you feel when you know that there are people out there who want to kill you.


You cannot say that a particular action taken in war is immoral without saying that every action taken in war is immoral. It's WAR. "A state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations." Armed. Hostile. Conflict. None of these factor morality in to their equation.


When speaking of war, there is no room for morals. Only tactics. So speaking from the point of view of the soldier who only wants to make it home alive to eat dinner with his family, the U.S. dropping those bombs was the best tactical maneuver they could make. The alternative was full-scale invasion that would have resulted in even more casualties than those two bombs caused. When you get right down to it, it was a choice between two great evils and the U.S. chose the lesser of the two. Does this lessen the horror and atrocity of the act? No. It doesn't and you can see my above comments concerning the definition of war to clarify it.


If you want to mix morality with war, then that morality needs to be used to prevent war because it is a poor tool in ending one.


To those of you for whom this may be a sensitive topic, try not to take my blunt words personally. War is a representation of humanity's ultimate iniquity and yet it is the stepping stone of many of civilization's greatest achievements. Remember, not every victim in a war is a participant and not every participant is a soldier. But enough of my ramblings. As someone who takes a great interest in the rise and fall of human societies as well as (ancient) warfare, I shall end this with one of my favorite quotes.


"All civilizations owe their origins to the warrior." -John Keegan, military historian

 

[Project Brazen II]

So I suppose, Lore, that you consider laws of war and war crimes to be farces. Despite the violence of war a large part of the world has indeed agreed that there acts that are completely unacceptable in war.

 

[Mitheral]

It is so much fun to go back and read threads I posted to long ago.


Very bluntly, no government has ever come about without the force of arms. Nor has one stood the test of time without their use to defend it.


The question was not about the morality of the action - but if it was right or wrong. I could argue either side. I took the side of supporting what would be fewer deaths. But it you want to be really cold about it, killing off a few more people would mean less mouths to feed. In light of the world starvation we are soon to face, which is better?


Context is vital.


At the time just before the start of WW II Hitler was talking peace - while signing secret agreements with Russia regarding the invasion of Poland. The US and Japan were in peace talks as well - even as the Japan had its fleets out in preparation to attack Pearl Harbor. Both of the nations - Germany and Japan - committed unspeakable atrocities and deserved a serious smack down that would scar them forever as a reminder.


Today there are countries that haven't learned this lesson of history and - mark my words well - will repeat the mistakes of past tyrants - unless those tyrants die and better men step up to take their place. If those nations proceed on their present course the costs in lives will make the death toll of the combined WW 1 and 2 pale. It is only the development of technology today that may reduce the levels of retaliation - and hopefully will not.


It is usually the act of STARTING a war that is immoral - the exception being to restore basic rights to a people. The act of retaliation is about as moral as it gets. We have the right to protect our lives and quality of life.

 

[Lore]

[QUOTE="Project Brazen II]So I suppose, Lore, that you consider laws of war and war crimes to be farces. Despite the violence of war a large part of the world has indeed agreed that there acts that are completely unacceptable in war.

[/QUOTE]
They are farces. To apply laws or rules to something like war and then to parade them around as if they minimize the cruelty is like putting a halo on the Devil and saying that he's not really a bad guy, just misunderstood. Also, a "large part of the world" did not make these "rules and regulations" despite the violence of war but rather because of the violence of war.


When you speak of the "laws of war" I'm going to assume that you are referring to the Geneva Conventions which are actually a joke. Have you ever heard of the saying "rules are meant to be broken"? These "rules" and "laws" are in place to make war more "humane". The very idea of that is laughable as it contradicts the nature of war. These so-called rules will be upheld by one losing side or the other only until breaking one or all of these conditions benefits them to the point of victory.


Simply put, a losing side in a war may not break these conditions because they fear the consequences they face after the war. However, if said losing side believes that breaking any of these conditions will grant them total victory to the point that they will not have to fear any such repercussions then there is nothing to stop them.


War is not football. There are are no coaches, referees, or cheerleaders. These so-called rules of war are a deceptive tool in the poor attempt to create a surface of justification and humanitarianism but, like beauty these concepts are only skin-deep. Did these rules of war prevent the slaughter and forced re-location of Native Americans by white settlers? Hardly. Did they prevent the slaughter of nearly 6 million Jews in WWII? Definitely not. Or what about the infamous Rape of Belgium?


I go back to another old adage when I say it's not cheating if you don't get caught. These rules are constantly broken by all sides in a war and they are covered up and even when they're revealed, there are more often than not no repercussions.


You know what else a "large part of the world" agrees on? War is Hell. You say that a "large part of the world" has agreed that there are acts in war that are "completely unacceptable". So would you mind explaining to me what parts of war ARE acceptable? Killing your fellow Man? Occupying enemy territory and then subjecting the locals to your own rules, completely disregarding their own customs? To say that these so-called rules makes certain acts of war acceptable is to say that the act of declaring war to begin with is acceptable.


If these rules are so golden then perhaps their application should be used in the prevention of war rather than trying to bring humanity to an otherwise inhumane act.


But alas, this thread is not about war in general but rather about a particular event in WWII and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not actually violate the Geneva Conventions and that alone makes your point in this particular thread moot.


That's all I really have to share on the subject.

 

[Carl]

You were right to bomb Hiroshima, but the reasons you provided have absolutely nothing to do with it.


Not going to write a novel about why you were right, alot comes into play as to why that decision was the right course of action between prolonging a fight with a notoriously 'die before giving up' people and using 'shock' more than anything else really, to end that battle.


But anyway, you were right, not because 'war is hell' because, while that's true, it has little to nothing to do with being right or wrong to bomb Hiroshima because 'war is hell'