200yrs2late
Resident Parrothead
Posts: 15,328
Joined: Jan 2010
Reputation: 767
I Root For: East Carolina
Location: SE of disorder
|
RE: Hiroshima & Nagasaki
(09-03-2015 10:27 AM)UCF08 Wrote: (09-03-2015 10:21 AM)Fitbud Wrote: (09-03-2015 10:18 AM)UCF08 Wrote: (09-03-2015 10:09 AM)Fitbud Wrote: (09-03-2015 10:08 AM)UCF08 Wrote: Not even close to an exaggeration.
You are entitled to your opinion. What remains a fact however is that the bombs that landed at Hiroshima & Ngasaki killed hundreds of thousands.
Not immediately, and at the time we did not understand radiation and it's long term effects so to hold us responsible as if we expected the long term repercussions isn't fair. Furthermore, as I'm sure others have pointed out, using conventional weapons in the firebombing of Tokyo resulted in more deaths than either nuclear bomb did.
And there were 70 million Japanese living on Japan in 1940. It is hard to imagine a scenario of complete military conquest over that island that does not results in combined civilian and military deaths in the millions. Maybe was possible, but I find it highly unlikely.
I'm not holding anyone responsible for anything. That happened a long time ago and most of the people who had a hand in what happened have been judged by their maker.
I'm simply saying that IMHO, I could not justify dropping the bomb.
Then you would have sentenced them to more deaths through continued conventional bombings, starvation, and exponentially more death by invasion. Mathematically speaking, the nuclear bombs were a god send to the average Japanese citizen. It gave the military leadership and out by which they could save their honor without relying on a heroic last stand, it made it clear to the emperor that defeat was an inevitability, and hurried the already decided end.
Slightly off topic and we can always debate the motives behind going to war, but can you imagine how much better off all countries would be if wars were still fought to be won? I'm not saying nuking everybody, but there are many wars that could have been won with conventional weapons much more efficiently and would have led to less of a quagmire than much of the world currently is in.
|
|
09-03-2015 10:37 AM |
|
Owl 69/70/75
Just an old rugby coach
Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX
|
RE: Hiroshima & Nagasaki
(09-03-2015 10:37 AM)200yrs2late Wrote: Slightly off topic and we can always debate the motives behind going to war, but can you imagine how much better off all countries would be if wars were still fought to be won? I'm not saying nuking everybody, but there are many wars that could have been won with conventional weapons much more efficiently and would have led to less of a quagmire than much of the world currently is in.
Never fight a war that you don't intend to win.
|
|
09-03-2015 11:10 AM |
|