BF2S Forums Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Was It Necessary?

Spark wrote:

Kukulcan wrote:

No , they WEREN'T necessary. USA could have invaded the japan , he did it with france and germany why couldn't they do with japan. They had the soldiers , they had the tanks , they had all they deserved to a full scale invasion.

I mean : war is a bad thing but i'm speaking about the difference ok deads between soldiers and civs. Launching the a.bomb has saved many soldiers' lives but killed thousands of civilians. A full scale invasion probably would have killed many more soldiers but maybe it would have saved some civs life and years of nuclear fallout and a part of the reconstruction.

The USA judged their soldiers lifes more important than the civs' ones.... that's not right , what right they had to do this? The japan was on their knees , they were weak  , probably in 3 months they would have felt.

The a.bomb condemnde the 2 regions for long time with nuclear fallout , still now japan people are paying for that mistake. The cancer rate is very high out there for example , i speak as a medic now.

If they did to ''quick the war times'' why didn't they do that also europe? I'm happy they didn't , cause i'm italian but i don't find an explanation to this.... they already had the projects ( stolen from germany ) .

Incorrect. The most exaggerated of atomic bomb casualties estimates puts the figure at 200 000. The conservative estimate for an invasion of Japan (given the insanely extreme Japanese attitude) was several million. And you can't drop in Europe, as the war was over in Europe well before the completion of the bomb.

I think it is imprudent to attempt to judge the actions of the people back then, after 6 years of the most devestating and brutal war mankind has ever seen. Had the bomb been publicised, it would've found overwhelming support amongst the public. As far as they were concerned, the Japanese were cruel and heartless animals who deserved nothing less than complete annhilation, and dropping the bomb would've found such support amongst the public due to the simple fact that it saved hundreds of thousands of American lives.

Bottom line. .  .

If either the Germans or the Japanese got the bomb, they would have used it!! no doubt about it. . .

We just happen to get it first, used it, and ended the war. . . .what is so wrong about that?

America is damned if we do and damned if we dont!! Jesus Christ! Those who say the bombs werent for the ultimate benefit of the world ARE CRAZY!!

War is hell, no one here is saying it isnt!! It's (war/death that comes with it) the true shame of humanity, unfortunatly its necessary. . . .

Probably the first time I have agreed with you. If you ran the tape of history again from, say, 1910, the chance becomes alarmingly high that Germany would get the bomb first, all that would be required is for James Chadwick (?) to discover the neutron a tad faster than he actually did. The bomb would then be developed in Europe, at the place with the most advanced and biggest war machine - Germany. The bomb would most likely be dropped on London during the Battle of Britain and Britain would have lost (as the rest of the Luftwaffe would have continued to beat the RAF's airbases to a pulp, as they came very close to doing. This would've resulted in the fall of the RAF, the clearing of Operation Sea Lion and the eventual fall of Britain.)

Last edited by mcjagdflieger (2007-02-02 00:19:16)

A nuclear explosion never brings good things.... standard war is hell but at least everyone can fight for his life. In another 3ad somoene was about  ''war honour'' saying that a sniper that hits target from afar isn't hounourable. Well , what about this? this WAS honourable?

Apart the people died for the explosions theirselves... you condemnded a whole nation. What about this? STILL NOW people die for that decision , and japan is no more enemy of us.

Vilham wrote:

bob_6012 wrote:

I believe that it was necessary to drop the bombs. Japan was not going to surrender even if we knew they were defeated, they had too much pride and would have rather died than suffered the humiliation of defeat, the same reason the kamikaze existed, it's part of their Bushido code I believe, death over defeat. If we would have invaded Japan it would have made Normandy look like a picnic, with estimated casualties of over 1 million just on the invasion. You have to realize that it would have been like Iraq is today, only worse, every able citizen would have been armed and would have put up a fight. They even trained people to run little wooden boats laden with explosives into our landing craft in suicide runs. Now I'm not saying that the bombs weren't horrific, because they were, I hope that I never see nuclear warfare in my lifetime, or anyone else's for that matter, but I believe that it was one of the things that helped bring the end of the war to a speedy conclusion, and that's what counts, speed.

I kinda agree with most of it other than the 1 million figure, which tbh is pure bullshit. That figure was made by politicians and not military commanders, ie the figure was made by people who had not much of an idea of war.

Kmarion wrote:

Pubic wrote:

Null vote.

But no.

The invasion would have cost more lives than the nukes, but the allies could have just nuked a little base/island/whatever, and sent a note to Hirohito saying "Look at XXX island, this is what we'll do to you if you don't surrender"

Yea but what if it was a dud... doh

mcjagdflieger wrote:

and as for people still dieing from nuclear fallout, um, i wouldn't move to a city thats been nuked. is it our fault that they're still there? thats like blaming parents for having a deformed or challenged child. except even thats not as bad as some jackass living in a nuked city. if new york city was nuked 60 years ago, i sure as shit wouldn't live there. nor i doubt anyone knowing it was would. if they're dieing today from having been there or near then when it happened, you cant blame us now for that. thats still a casualty and consequence from what happened then. your arguments lack any and all logic.

Last edited by Recoil555 (2007-02-02 01:22:22)

Spark wrote:

Recoil555 wrote:

mcjagdflieger wrote:

and as for people still dieing from nuclear fallout, um, i wouldn't move to a city thats been nuked. is it our fault that they're still there? thats like blaming parents for having a deformed or challenged child. except even thats not as bad as some jackass living in a nuked city. if new york city was nuked 60 years ago, i sure as shit wouldn't live there. nor i doubt anyone knowing it was would. if they're dieing today from having been there or near then when it happened, you cant blame us now for that. thats still a casualty and consequence from what happened then. your arguments lack any and all logic.

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

I'm sorry i don't think you understand radiation very well its not Residual radiation thats doing the real damage its the fact that the people 60 ago years where caught in the radiation are reproducing as their right as human beings and because they were irradiated they have genetic defects and so do their sperm and eggs and the reason they come out deformed is not Residual radiation it is due to genetic mutation though generations from the original irradiated person. So therefore your logic is flawed and damn right inconsiderate if you still thinks its their fault then i cannot explain to you anymore why its not.


On top of that it didn't just effect people that were in the war its killing their children prematurely years later and cutting the life span of these people and for what ? someone here give me good justification on killing and deforming children years after a war ? ffs the war was won they just wanted to know what it really did.

The war was not won. The war would not be won until Japan surrendered, as long as they did not, they were a severe threat in the region.

Last edited by Recoil555 (2007-02-02 01:28:44)

Spark wrote:

Recoil555 wrote:

Spark wrote:

The war was not won. The war would not be won until Japan surrendered, as long as they did not, they were a severe threat in the region.

As won as it needed to be in my opinion. but that isnt even the point im trying to make the poster i qoute says its their fault they got irradiated ? you believe that too ?

Of course I don't believe that. However, no one knew that radiation poisoning would be that bad - therefore, blame is useless. For example, if a drug company makes a drug, and the first time it is tested the testee throws up, do you really blame the drug company for making a bad drug?

Plus, I don't want to sound too asshole-like here, but your opinion on when the war was won is irrelevant.

Last edited by Recoil555 (2007-02-02 01:37:30)

Last edited by some_random_panda (2007-02-02 02:03:02)

Spark wrote:

A nuclear explosion never brings good things.... standard war is hell but at least everyone can fight for his life. In another 3ad somoene was about  ''war honour'' saying that a sniper that hits target from afar isn't hounourable. Well , what about this? this WAS honourable?

Apart the people died for the explosions theirselves... you condemnded a whole nation. What about this? STILL NOW people die for that decision , and japan is no more enemy of us.

Should the invasion have taken place you might as well have cut off the last three words of your post - 'japan is no more'.

I'm sorry, I cannot reconcile with those who say that 200 000 (this is an Exaggeration made by ME. The official figures are around two-thirds that) people died for an unforgivable cause yet ignore the 5 - 10 million who would've died as a result of an invasion. Also those who judge those from WWII when they have no idea what the war did to their mindsets are abhorrent to me.