Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Was the Atomic bomb Justified
Common Ground Common Sense > Online Café > The Polling Place > The Polling Place Archive
noonanda
I only got a little time, I'll post my choice and reasonings later on
TheRestofUs
I voted other.

I would have tried to NOT drop that horrible thing on civilians.

I know I'm gonna get jumped on for this, but I don't care because I've already been beat up verbally by experts (WWII Vets, my parents, relatives).

People I still worship as heros.

I would have demonstrated it in front of the Japanese people and the world, thereby accomplishing the goal of cowing Stalin!
FellowDemocrat
I would have done exactly what Truman did. We told them to give up or face the consequences and they didn't. Yes, 200,000 deaths is alot, but invading Japan (Aka X-day) would have killed ALOT more people than that. They say 1,000,000 American alone would have been killed not to mention all the Japanese who would have fought to the death. It would have been absolutely horrible.
Morambar in TX
QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Aug 9 2005, 09:36 AM)
I would have demonstrated it in front of the Japanese people and the world, thereby accomplishing the goal of cowing Stalin!
*


We did. Still took two tries. And whether the Japanese would surrender was hotly debated in Tokyo right up to the end, even after two bomb drops.

War is hell, as Sherman said, and anything that brings that hell to an end sooner and with less loss of life is a good thing. Yes, civilians were killed. Civilians were killed at Vicksburg, too. A siege of an entire island, followed by a protracted and bloody invasion, would've killed a few civilians, too, in various ways, many of which are a lot less pleasant than the fate of the residents of two cities. It certainly would've killed more; estimates are that the bomb(s) reduced the Japanes casualties, in military personnel alone, by an order of magnitude, so yes, it was justified.

Having now viewed the choices, I guess my choice is technically "Other," because I'd opt for the choice that was actually taken: threaten them with the bomb, as we did, and when they don't believe you, as they didn't, use it; when they STILL don't believe you, perhaps thinking it was a once only option (since the Japanese were supposedly about six months away from the bomb themselves,) do it again to show them you're serious. Option B "make an idle threat and sit on your hand until they also have a bomb and start a nuclear war" is unappealing.
Frenchy
Knowing what we know now of the massive destructive power in terms of both life and property that the A-Bomb possessed, I still feel that using it was the right thing to do.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2010 Invision Power Services, Inc.