The Japanese code of Bushido would never have allowed the concept of surrender enter the Japanese mind. They had to be broken completely of this flawed mindset. If the bomb had not been dropped they would still have thought they would have won. Based on previous us invasion of the l Japanese home islands a protracted battle would have occurred. It would have resulted in a protracted ground battle ending only after every single Japanese person Had been wiped out. This would have resulted in a lot more us deaths. The us at this stage in the war was already bankrupt from six years of protracted war and the lend lease agreement with the UK. The atomic bomb broke the will of the Japanese people to continue the fight. In their mind any further fight would have resulted in their extinction. Their survival instinct kicked and as a result of the annihilation of their cities they surrendered. It should be noted the soviets had plans to occupy Japan post war and were only stopped by the Americans
And now in 2018 they are so far in national debt, 200% of GDP, that they will have to sell the country to pay off the debt. They can’t ever pay it off at current birth/immigration rates. The GDP can’t grow fast enough to pay it off. So they will devalue their currency and it will become a third world country.
I can't decide if your bring serious or not. Tbh Your conflating one issue with another. They don't breed enough to replace themselves ergo they have an ever shrinking population ergo an ever shrinking tax base
Hardly a surprise Americans continue to let corporations molest the Democratic process greed and unregulated capitalism is rotting the us from the inside out. the result is a dog eat dog country. It won't change until people change. "People get exactly the governments they deserve"
@jacquesvol There’s a thing called an “election” and the voters can change the laws and pass sewage treatment for Alabama poor people. I think Bernie would have won the election, but the Democratic Party manipulated the state and local caucuses to get Hilary on the ticket. I think it will be Elizabeth Warren next. Although I would at least ver Julian or Joaquin Castro. (Joaquin is a Congressman from San Antonio, Julian was mayor until he was a dept head under Obama).
That's like saying the German army in France had already surrendered so they shouldn't push on into Germany. The Japanese manchurian army was an occupational army which occupied China.
As an addition to that that tactic was tried in WWI with Germany what they were forced to sign an armistice it didn't work then it wouldn't have work now
In World War 1 Germany was not occupied they were forced into an armistice and the result was a research in Germany which ended up invading half of Europe the same thing would have happened had had the Japanese been left alone the whole Islands had to be invaded the country had to be destroyed or they would never have given up
After the German conservatives had appointed Hitler to get fid of lleftist politics Germany continued its expansive policy as if WW1 and Versailles never happened.
As regards Germany collectively Germany felt enboldened at the end of ww1 by the fact they were not occupied and then proceeded to regroup and start ww2
Nothing could be further from the truth. Germany was saddled with a giant debt at the end of WWI. They were basically forced to pay “war reparations” (payments to people hurt by the war). In doing this, it crippled the German economy. In the 1920’s, Germany devalued the mark so that they paid these war reparations back in a worthless currency. By the mid 1920’s, it took millions of marks to even buy a loaf of bread. Hitler came to power as the German economy was devastated and people were suffering. He came to power with a promise to end the misery and inflation. He did, and rose to power, ultimately their supreme leader. Germany became self-sufficient basically saying “f-you” to the rest of Europe and used German pride and built the country back very strong.
@bubbatxman The sum was initially set at 269 billion gold marks, around 96,000 tons of gold, before being reduced to 112 billion gold marks by 1929, payable over a period of 59 years.
Germany suspended annual payments in 1931 during the global financial crisis and Adolf Hitler unsurprisingly declined to resume them when he came to power in 1933.
But in 1953, West Germany agreed at an international conference in London to service its international bond obligations from BEFORE World War II. In the years that followed it repaid the principal on the bonds, which had been issued to private and institutional investors in countries including the United States.
Under the terms of the London accord, Germany was allowed to wait until it unified before paying some €125 million in outstanding interest that had accrued on its foreign debt in the years 1945 to 1952. After the Berlin Wall fell and West and East Germany united in 1990, the country dutifully paid that interest off in annual instalments, the last of which comes due on Oct. 3.
"Germany's pre-war foreign debt was paid back by the start of the 1980s, it mainly consisted of foreign bonds. This also applied to the debt of the German Reich, which largely consisted of bonds issued in connection with German reparations debt from World War I," the German Finance Ministry said in a statement.
abcnews.go.com/.../story?id=11755920 Thus Germany didn't pay much of that mythic Versailles debt. And it 100 100 years to repay it's pre WW1 debts too.
Of course not. The war was practically won. We didn't even have to invade Japan. All they wanted was to keep the title of Emperor for their figurehead.
In an explosion that killed 100,000 people instantly, our President proclaimed,
I've just watched a couple documentaries on this, and it was pretty well documented that it was unnecessary... out of the hundreds of thousands killed by the bombs only a small percentage were military, when the whole justification was to reduce lives lost upon invasion. We killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people because we simply could, and really really wanted to show our milital strength and prowess to move into the phase of America running things.
There is an awesome docuseries on Netflix that goes into detail about it... I just can't recall the name, but the logo is of an intense looking uncle sam.."America something or other" can't totally recall.
Well, i won't be able to find it with so little information. But rest assured i was watching divorce corp halfway through and was convinced as well that it's a billion dollar business or industry... Practically robbing regular citizens not only their money but also their mental health, their children and more.
So basically its... Bleak. To say the least.
Because as almost always it's about the money. This is capitalism.
Not that many smart women like you are alive nowadays but at least we are slowly getting somewhere. I hope i will find one of these women to spend my life with (unmarried).
One thing poverty teached me is that nothing is free and even marriage and divorce cost like a new, decent car if not even more. For artificializing an otherwise natural human bonding and a piece of paper with legal rules, "confirming" a human relationship and call it marriage.
Really? The next thing we have is another process making money out of us and that may as well be walking to other city districts. They already make money from us by approving of our "intelligence" called education, our "faith" called religion and even more, that i can't think of yet.
At the very least, health has a real use to be spending money on - that is if you don't want to suffer daily. The doctors actually so something for you in return and are the least likely to scam you.
That's the reason I dont want to be married... I dont believe in it regarding the way the legality of it is handled, and the expense that comes with divorce since it is always a possibility... if I wasn't spoken for, I would have already been flirting with you ;-).
I agree, I have the same reasons to abstain from these money syphoning methods. There just isn't enough for average citizens to begin with. And why even risk it.
Oh, you are one clever and sweet lady ☺ I would totally go out with you and date you and get to know you without hesitation my dear (: 👋🤗💕
If the bombs had not been dropped, there would have been a bloody, months long campaign to invade the home islands in which more Japanese and American lives were lost as the Japanese military encouraged every man woman and child to take up arms against the American invasion. Those who do not even consider this a potential reality do not know their history or the Japanese political structure and culture as it existed in the 1940s.
They specifically chose civilian targets over purely military targets I do not believe that to be justified Japan was losing the war already the bombings didn't really achieve any military goals per se Japan was concerned about the Soviets entering the Pacific war and would in all likelihood have surrendered due to that anyway the Japanese military command was ready to continue despite the bombs but a two front war less so
It was a shock and awe campaign. That is what nuclear weapons are for. To convince your enemy to stop and surrender. Every nuclear submarine now carries over 100 warheads of the same power as the first two bombs. There is a reason most countries won’t mess with the USA.
It was not justified. The war was ending and they misunderstood the word Mokusatsu. How would be the world without this traumatism? Did we limit the nuclear weapon? Countries apparently controlled today would have so quiet without international agreement? The sad question is who would have been touched by atomic bombs years later if this kind of bomb was never used at this time.
@ThisDudeHere If the atomic weapons weren't used, then a regular land invasion would be brutal just like how the Normandy Invasion, or D-Day except in the Pacific Theater. It would result in even more casualties, for both military and civilians. The war would be prolonged, thus the allies knew better to just try and force Japan to surrender ASAP. Some times I wondered if they had another 2 atomic bombs on standby and ready to deploy if 2 isn't enough to force Japan to give up their aggression and surrender.
No I do not think that. In fact I believe USA had already gotten Japan's terms of surrender which were virtually identical to the ones in the final peace offer.
That peace basically said "You can do anything but hands off our emperor."
And keep Manchuria And let us prosecute our own war criminals. And generally leave us alone, and don't get involved in our internal politics.
So, Japan's idea of a surrender was very different from what the world expected. It's essentially like the Germans saying "OK, but we keep Hitler, and Poland, and Austria, and you leave us alone, to do whatever we want to". Does that sound fair to you?
@Benedek38 To my knowledge the only stated restriction in the initial terms of surrender was the Emperor. Everything else is probably just the result of the diplomatic back and forth.
I don't think so. The country was at the verge of crumbling. The military was in ruin, the people wouldn't have supported the war for long, since their living condition was terrible, and even the emperor wanted to surrender, and was only stopped by his own generals. Also, dropping the bombs wasn't to stop the war. It was a show off, to show the USSR the new toy USA had. Thousands of people killed so the US could show the USSR who had the biggest dick.
Eh half and half. When Hitler was killed, they should have surrendered. Without Germany the nazi forces were nothing. I think it was more about teaching Japan not to be stubborn when they had clearly lost.
On the other side the bombs did cause massive environmental destruction and harm people even to this day.
Though about a the same amount of people would have died if the allies had to invade Japan so it's not really a question of death more of the impact of the bombs.
Well that sort of leans more into my opinion as I'm slight more in the it was necessary. The only bad part really is the long term effects it had on Japan but they did give us anime so it's not all bad.
Or lose much more trying to invade them to stop them warring? The bombs probably save more lives than killed as invading Japan would have been another entire campaign loosing many allied and axis lives.
They weren't just going to give up it would have been a long fight even with the Russians. A show of force made them surrender before the allies had to put in a full scale invasion.
The Japanese where known for their to the death attitude one part of the army may have surrendered but the general wasn't going to surrender anytime. Yes I do know hitler shot himself it was just easier to say killed, I didn't say by who so it's still technically correct.
Well, what happened is we destroyed Japan's military for the most part but they still refused to surrender. Rather than having a potential mini D-Day they decided to test out their nuclear weapons which ended up being really really bad. So yes... and no.
I'm a 50/50. The Americans were just curious if the bombs work and doing it for experiment was wrong. The Japanese were already losing tho but if you think, the Japanese alone killed many innocent people too and that pearl harbor incident was a sneak attack so there's a bit of justice in it.
The Japanese were fighting a new kind of war that many had never fought before. The estimated casualties for a land invasion of the Japanese main land was about 11million. American military loses were estimated at 1.5 million. America lost more men in the Pacific theatre than the did fighting the nazi's in the West.
This situation was simply pretty over the top and more of a statement and fear factor. It was also a way for the U. S. to flex their power to the world.
No destruction is ever justified. Wars are not justified and the death of millions of people for the sake of a few people's greed can never be justified
Wow. Just remember that when someone comes to rob your house in the middle of night. Sure, their actions aren’t justified. But with your logic, let them come in, give them what they want, let them do what they want to your whife, children, pets, and belongings. Don’t defend your home, your spouse, children, friends and such. Because any justifiable action of self defense and justice, is mot justified according to your logic
You defend yourself against the robber, you don't attack and destroy the people who know him who didn't rob your house. Which is what happens in wars where innocent people are being killed and they're all civilians
The leaders of unjust wars do not visit the battlefields. Even if you kill the leaders, others can replace them. It is necessary to remove the aggressor's capacity to wage war. That means crippling the aggressor's ability to manufacture weaponry, planes, ships, etc. Wars and won and lost on the basis of logistics. The "innocent" civilians back home are manufacturing bombs, ships, munitions, etc. Their innocence is not absolute.
However, I will concede that truly innocent people were killed in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Truly innocent people were killed at Pearl Harbor, in the Philippines, Guam, and every other part of the Pacific that was invaded by Japan.
How morally superior is it to resist the call to defense, the call to end aggression, when doing so means that more innocent people will die?
You still don’t understand. If you are a pacifist, then the bullies win and take your stuff and rape you and then kill you when you are no longer beneficial to them.
The point was to demonstrate the destructive capability of the nuclear weapon. And taking out a base near Tokyo or Kyoto would have killed millions. (And you don’t use a weapon like this to blow up a tiny peripheral island with no population). It was MEANT to kill a lot of people and be absolutely HORRIBLE. And you might just noticed that no cities have been nuked since these two!!! So 129,000 people’s lives destroyed instead of Russia using it on Washington DC or NYC. Or North Korea on Seoul. Or Pakistan on New Delhi.
You have the luxury of being a pacifist because someone else has assumed the responsibility of insuring your safety. If you were walking alone through the woods and a guy approached you and threatened to rape you, would you use force to resist him or would you allow him to do what he wanted to you?
The ideal world of which you dream does not exist. You have remained in a cocoon of innocence and you are viewing the world in child-like terms. If every other occupant of the world held similar beliefs, the world could live at peace. However, there are people in the middle east who, if given the opportunity, would cut my head off just because I am a Christian. These people live in cities and they use the urban landscape as their battleground. Destroying villains sometimes causes harm or even death to innocent people. Such unintended consequences are rarely avoidable. Soldiers rarely look for opportunities to kill innocent civilians. You are not the only one who is motivated by morality and the fact that others see war as necessary does not mean that they are immoral.
Same applies to some people who hate Muslims. I know very well in what kind of world I live in. The question was pretty clear if those things are justified. No no violence can be justified and that's my own opinion which I have a right to have. I respect your opinion and no need to try to convince me otherwise. I stick to my own opinion and thank you for the discussion
Speak softly, but carry a big stick. If someone is trying to hurt you or someone else, your goal is to immediately disable their ability to do so, so that they cannot continue to harm you or anyone else. That means hitting back twice as hard so they stay down.
Well it was after all Japan's fault for turning a trade war (the embargo the USA placed on them) into a World War (attacking the USA without declaring war at least).
In addition, the USA had offered them the Postdam declaration more than twice and they refused. It was to surrender (unconditionally) already, no ifs nor buts.
11.2K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Japan was already on its knees by the napalm bombings of all cities. And ready to capitulate. The Abbomb was only dropped to stop the Russians from landing in Japan.
"Japan was already on its knees by the napalm bombings of all cities. And ready to capitulate." They were offered a chance to capitulate well before the bombing. If theyyou accepted the conditions of the surrender in the Potsdam conference, there wouldn't have been any problem. But they didn't. They wanted to keep their occupied territories, as well as keeping the Imperial system, and they wanted to prosecute their war criminals themselves (which translates to "let's sweep it under the rug"). Thus they rejected the surrender. Before the bombing, both cities were littered with flyers warning about the bombing.
No offense, but think about it this way. A small, weak guy approaches you at a bar. Grabs your girlfriend's butt. You tell him "buddy, I give you a chance to let go of my girlfriend's ass. If you do, and you buy her a drink, I'll leave you alone, we're good" He says "No, that's not gonna work", and keeps his hands on her butt.
You raise your fist, and tell him "Buddy, I'll punch you on the count of three if you don't let her go". He doesn't. You punch him.
Are you at fault here?
"The Abbomb was only dropped to stop the Russians from landing in Japan." What? More like to pressure the Japanese into a quick surrender, instead of letting them negotiate with the Russians, and eventually retain their power.
@Benedek38 Just look at chronology: Soviet invasion of Manchuria began on 9 August 9,1945 Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9, 1945 TRuman wanted to scare WHO?
@Benedek38 They didn't have it yet and Truman could drop the next one on the Red Army or on a Russian city. That was the American message. Too bad if 225,000 Japanese more had too die.
Also, "just look at the dates" End of Potsdam conference, where the conditions of surrender were determined for Japan: August 2 Nuclear bombs: August 6 and 9 So... it could just as well be what I said.
I have no doubt that the US was in a race to get hold of Japan faster than the Russians, but just because the Russians had Manchuria, that doesn't mean they were anywhere near occupying Japan. In fact, they would have needed a whole D-day like operation to defeat the Japanese, so the Americans were in no hurry.
"Truman could drop the next one on the Red Army or on a Russian city. " Russian. City. The Russians weren't as bad at maths as you think. No plane going from America, or the Pacific, or the Atlantic could possibly reach any of the major Russian cities.
And as for the Red Army - anti-aircraft cannons. Seriously, you believe the Japanese weren't scarred of the bomb... but the Russians were? LOL. Why didn't they drop it on Berlin then? The tests were successful, the bomb was functional. Undoubtedly Germany was a more valuable asset than Japan.
"That was the American message. Too bad if 225,000 Japanese more had too die." I love when people want to make a point, so they take the highest estimate possible. The estimated number of deaths were 129-225 thousand. And 20000 were certainly soldiers.
"That plane could come from an American base in the UK" The range of a B29 superfortress is around 5000 km. The difference between London and Moscow is almost EXACTLY 2500 km, a bit more. So technically, if they are carrying almost no load, and they never hesitate a minute, everything goes perfectly, etc - they COULD maybe do it, but then that is almost certainly a suicide mission. So I am pretty sure taking turbulence, enemy air traffic, surveillance, etc into account, there is no way a superfortress could make it to Moscow without being taken down, or the plane having to emergency land somewhere on the way back.
"Don't forget those who died from radio active exposure during the next 5 years." Do your own research. The radiation after a nuclear bomb is minimal. Even with only a fraction of the bomb actually engaging in chain reaction, the radiation was not even significant. Most people who died of radiation were in the zone of radiation, and are included in the casualities.
That is what I meant. The fallout of a nuclear bomb is insignificant compared to, say, the Chernobyl or Fukushima catastrophy. It's not even comparable. If you are not educated on the topic, I suggest brushing up on highschool physics, specifically nuclear fission. Short version, if the bomb is 100% effective, there is almost no residual radiation. That's kind of the point. The fact that the Little Boy and the Fat Man were badly primed, and only a fraction of their actual load exploded, is another business entirely. But even then, the radiation is no greater than if you ground down a small bundle. of uea ium rods, and sprinkled it over Hiroshima.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
83Opinion
The Japanese code of Bushido would never have allowed the concept of surrender enter the Japanese mind. They had to be broken completely of this flawed mindset. If the bomb had not been dropped they would still have thought they would have won. Based on previous us invasion of the l Japanese home islands a protracted battle would have occurred. It would have resulted in a protracted ground battle ending only after every single Japanese person Had been wiped out. This would have resulted in a lot more us deaths. The us at this stage in the war was already bankrupt from six years of protracted war and the lend lease agreement with the UK. The atomic bomb broke the will of the Japanese people to continue the fight. In their mind any further fight would have resulted in their extinction. Their survival instinct kicked and as a result of the annihilation of their cities they surrendered. It should be noted the soviets had plans to occupy Japan post war and were only stopped by the Americans
@qwertykeyboardirldub Suppositions.
the official bad Army excuse for mass murder
Read up on it before you jump to conclusions
And now in 2018 they are so far in national debt, 200% of GDP, that they will have to sell the country to pay off the debt. They can’t ever pay it off at current birth/immigration rates. The GDP can’t grow fast enough to pay it off. So they will devalue their currency and it will become a third world country.
I can't decide if your bring serious or not. Tbh Your conflating one issue with another. They don't breed enough to replace themselves ergo they have an ever shrinking population ergo an ever shrinking tax base
Half joke, half truth
Why so worried about the Japs anyway?
@bubbatxman www.npr.org/.../the-u-n-looks-at-extreme-poverty-in-the-u-s-from-alabama-to-california
Hardly a surprise Americans continue to let corporations molest the Democratic process greed and unregulated capitalism is rotting the us from the inside out. the result is a dog eat dog country. It
won't change until people change. "People get exactly the governments they deserve"
Conservatives call anything that isn't a dog eat dog country 'Socialism'
Except the 08 bank bailout of course.
@jacquesvol There’s a thing called an “election” and the voters can change the laws and pass sewage treatment for Alabama poor people. I think Bernie would have won the election, but the Democratic Party manipulated the state and local caucuses to get Hilary on the ticket. I think it will be Elizabeth Warren next. Although I would at least ver Julian or Joaquin Castro. (Joaquin is a Congressman from San Antonio, Julian was mayor until he was a dept head under Obama).
Funny thing is it's never a poor person who gets elected always billionaires
@bubbatxman Bernie is a self proclaimed socialist. No party in America likes Socialism. Nor the Republicans, nor the Democrats.
@wertykeyboardirldub The Japanese Manchuria army had already surrendered to the Soviets
That wasn't what the US govt wanted.
That's like saying the German army in France had already surrendered so they shouldn't push on into Germany. The Japanese manchurian army was an occupational army which occupied China.
As an addition to that that tactic was tried in WWI with Germany what they were forced to sign an armistice it didn't work then it wouldn't have work now
Truman didn't consider France an enemy (like Bush and Trump would do)
In World War 1 Germany was not occupied they were forced into an armistice and the result was a research in Germany which ended up invading half of Europe the same thing would have happened had had the Japanese been left alone the whole Islands had to be invaded the country had to be destroyed or they would never have given up
After the German conservatives had appointed Hitler to get fid of lleftist politics Germany continued its expansive policy as if WW1 and Versailles never happened.
In 45 Japan was nearly destroyed, its Manchurian army had capitulated and the Soviets were ready to occupy it.
As regards Germany collectively Germany felt enboldened at the end of ww1 by the fact they were not occupied and then proceeded to regroup and start ww2
Nothing could be further from the truth. Germany was saddled with a giant debt at the end of WWI. They were basically forced to pay “war reparations” (payments to people hurt by the war). In doing this, it crippled the German economy. In the 1920’s, Germany devalued the mark so that they paid these war reparations back in a worthless currency. By the mid 1920’s, it took millions of marks to even buy a loaf of bread. Hitler came to power as the German economy was devastated and people were suffering. He came to power with a promise to end the misery and inflation. He did, and rose to power, ultimately their supreme leader. Germany became self-sufficient basically saying “f-you” to the rest of Europe and used German pride and built the country back very strong.
@bubbatxman The sum was initially set at 269 billion gold marks, around 96,000 tons of gold, before being reduced to 112 billion gold marks by 1929, payable over a period of 59 years.
Germany suspended annual payments in 1931 during the global financial crisis and Adolf Hitler unsurprisingly declined to resume them when he came to power in 1933.
But in 1953, West Germany agreed at an international conference in London to service its international bond obligations from BEFORE World War II.
In the years that followed it repaid the principal on the bonds, which had been issued to private and institutional investors in countries including the United States.
Under the terms of the London accord, Germany was allowed to wait until it unified before paying some €125 million in outstanding interest that had accrued on its foreign debt in the years 1945 to 1952. After the Berlin Wall fell and West and East Germany united in 1990, the country dutifully paid that interest off in annual instalments, the last of which comes due on Oct. 3.
"Germany's pre-war foreign debt was paid back by the start of the 1980s, it mainly consisted of foreign bonds. This also applied to the debt of the German Reich, which largely consisted of bonds issued in connection with German reparations debt from World War I," the German Finance Ministry said in a statement.
abcnews.go.com/.../story?id=11755920
Thus Germany didn't pay much of that mythic Versailles debt. And it 100 100 years to repay it's pre WW1 debts too.
correction: ___And it took nearly 100 years to repay it's pre WW1 debts too.
@bubbatxman There’s a thing called an “election”, indeed and the voters in Red states won't spend a cent on Alabama sewage systems. Dog eats dog.
Of course not. The war was practically won. We didn't even have to invade Japan. All they wanted was to keep the title of Emperor for their figurehead.
In an explosion that killed 100,000 people instantly, our President proclaimed,
"This is the greatest thing in history."
I've just watched a couple documentaries on this, and it was pretty well documented that it was unnecessary... out of the hundreds of thousands killed by the bombs only a small percentage were military, when the whole justification was to reduce lives lost upon invasion. We killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people because we simply could, and really really wanted to show our milital strength and prowess to move into the phase of America running things.
Sounds familiar @JudgmentDay?
There is an awesome docuseries on Netflix that goes into detail about it... I just can't recall the name, but the logo is of an intense looking uncle sam.."America something or other" can't totally recall.
Well, i won't be able to find it with so little information. But rest assured i was watching divorce corp halfway through and was convinced as well that it's a billion dollar business or industry... Practically robbing regular citizens not only their money but also their mental health, their children and more.
So basically its... Bleak. To say the least.
Because as almost always it's about the money. This is capitalism.
That is an amazing documentary, and it opened my eyes to world of divorce for sure, and I completely agree it all comes down to money and capitalism.
Not that many smart women like you are alive nowadays but at least we are slowly getting somewhere. I hope i will find one of these women to spend my life with (unmarried).
One thing poverty teached me is that nothing is free and even marriage and divorce cost like a new, decent car if not even more. For artificializing an otherwise natural human bonding and a piece of paper with legal rules, "confirming" a human relationship and call it marriage.
Really? The next thing we have is another process making money out of us and that may as well be walking to other city districts.
They already make money from us by approving of our "intelligence" called education, our "faith" called religion and even more, that i can't think of yet.
At the very least, health has a real use to be spending money on - that is if you don't want to suffer daily. The doctors actually so something for you in return and are the least likely to scam you.
That's the reason I dont want to be married... I dont believe in it regarding the way the legality of it is handled, and the expense that comes with divorce since it is always a possibility... if I wasn't spoken for, I would have already been flirting with you ;-).
I agree, I have the same reasons to abstain from these money syphoning methods. There just isn't enough for average citizens to begin with. And why even risk it.
Oh, you are one clever and sweet lady ☺ I would totally go out with you and date you and get to know you without hesitation my dear (: 👋🤗💕
By the way check this out ;) I'm sure you will like it if you haven't watched it yet :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNQ2kV1OTPU
Well if I ever become single, I know how to get in touch with you 😉. I'll check out this video once I'm not in public, thanks for sending it. 😊
No problem kind lady ☺😉 take care.
If the bombs had not been dropped, there would have been a bloody, months long campaign to invade the home islands in which more Japanese and American lives were lost as the Japanese military encouraged every man woman and child to take up arms against the American invasion. Those who do not even consider this a potential reality do not know their history or the Japanese political structure and culture as it existed in the 1940s.
They specifically chose civilian targets over purely military targets I do not believe that to be justified
Japan was losing the war already the bombings didn't really achieve any military goals per se Japan was concerned about the Soviets entering the Pacific war and would in all likelihood have surrendered due to that anyway the Japanese military command was ready to continue despite the bombs but a two front war less so
It was a shock and awe campaign. That is what nuclear weapons are for. To convince your enemy to stop and surrender. Every nuclear submarine now carries over 100 warheads of the same power as the first two bombs. There is a reason most countries won’t mess with the USA.
It was not justified. The war was ending and they misunderstood the word Mokusatsu. How would be the world without this traumatism? Did we limit the nuclear weapon?
Countries apparently controlled today would have so quiet without international agreement? The sad question is who would have been touched by atomic bombs years later if this kind of bomb was never used at this time.
Yes, for being an aggressor, they had caused so much harm, damage, destruction and many other atrocities. Thus, they brought it upon themselves.
@ThisDudeHere If the atomic weapons weren't used, then a regular land invasion would be brutal just like how the Normandy Invasion, or D-Day except in the Pacific Theater. It would result in even more casualties, for both military and civilians. The war would be prolonged, thus the allies knew better to just try and force Japan to surrender ASAP. Some times I wondered if they had another 2 atomic bombs on standby and ready to deploy if 2 isn't enough to force Japan to give up their aggression and surrender.
No I do not think that. In fact I believe USA had already gotten Japan's terms of surrender which were virtually identical to the ones in the final peace offer.
That peace basically said "You can do anything but hands off our emperor."
And keep Manchuria
And let us prosecute our own war criminals.
And generally leave us alone, and don't get involved in our internal politics.
So, Japan's idea of a surrender was very different from what the world expected.
It's essentially like the Germans saying "OK, but we keep Hitler, and Poland, and Austria, and you leave us alone, to do whatever we want to".
Does that sound fair to you?
@Benedek38 To my knowledge the only stated restriction in the initial terms of surrender was the Emperor. Everything else is probably just the result of the diplomatic back and forth.
I don't think so. The country was at the verge of crumbling. The military was in ruin, the people wouldn't have supported the war for long, since their living condition was terrible, and even the emperor wanted to surrender, and was only stopped by his own generals.
Also, dropping the bombs wasn't to stop the war. It was a show off, to show the USSR the new toy USA had. Thousands of people killed so the US could show the USSR who had the biggest dick.
Eh half and half. When Hitler was killed, they should have surrendered. Without Germany the nazi forces were nothing. I think it was more about teaching Japan not to be stubborn when they had clearly lost.
On the other side the bombs did cause massive environmental destruction and harm people even to this day.
Though about a the same amount of people would have died if the allies had to invade Japan so it's not really a question of death more of the impact of the bombs.
Actually far far more would have died if an invasion were to happen.
Well that sort of leans more into my opinion as I'm slight more in the it was necessary.
The only bad part really is the long term effects it had on Japan but they did give us anime so it's not all bad.
@A-man-22
" teaching Japan not to be stubborn" by killing hundreds of thousands in a big show?
Or lose much more trying to invade them to stop them warring? The bombs probably save more lives than killed as invading Japan would have been another entire campaign loosing many allied and axis lives.
@A-man-22 The soviets were already invading them. But that wasn't in harmony with Truman's plan
They weren't just going to give up it would have been a long fight even with the Russians. A show of force made them surrender before the allies had to put in a full scale invasion.
The napalm bombing and destruction of all cities was already a show of force.
Yes but the Japanese were not going to surrender that easily as they were still fighting.
FYI: Hitler wasn't killed. He shot himself
@A-man-22 the soviets took Manchuria from Japan without that much problems and were at the start of taking the Kuril islands.
The Kwantung Army surrendered
The Japanese where known for their to the death attitude one part of the army may have surrendered but the general wasn't going to surrender anytime.
Yes I do know hitler shot himself it was just easier to say killed, I didn't say by who so it's still technically correct.
Well, what happened is we destroyed Japan's military for the most part but they still refused to surrender. Rather than having a potential mini D-Day they decided to test out their nuclear weapons which ended up being really really bad. So yes... and no.
I'm a 50/50. The Americans were just curious if the bombs work and doing it for experiment was wrong. The Japanese were already losing tho but if you think, the Japanese alone killed many innocent people too and that pearl harbor incident was a sneak attack so there's a bit of justice in it.
The Japanese were fighting a new kind of war that many had never fought before. The estimated casualties for a land invasion of the Japanese main land was about 11million. American military loses were estimated at 1.5 million. America lost more men in the Pacific theatre than the did fighting the nazi's in the West.
This situation was simply pretty over the top and more of a statement and fear factor. It was also a way for the U. S. to flex their power to the world.
It wasn't justified. Atomic attacks just aren't, same as chemical ones aren't.
No destruction is ever justified. Wars are not justified and the death of millions of people for the sake of a few people's greed can never be justified
Tell that to the bullies who start them. They don’t care what you think.
@bubbatxman Ditto!
Wow. Just remember that when someone comes to rob your house in the middle of night. Sure, their actions aren’t justified. But with your logic, let them come in, give them what they want, let them do what they want to your whife, children, pets, and belongings. Don’t defend your home, your spouse, children, friends and such. Because any justifiable action of self defense and justice, is mot justified according to your logic
You defend yourself against the robber, you don't attack and destroy the people who know him who didn't rob your house.
Which is what happens in wars where innocent people are being killed and they're all civilians
The leaders of unjust wars do not visit the battlefields. Even if you kill the leaders, others can replace them. It is necessary to remove the aggressor's capacity to wage war. That means crippling the aggressor's ability to manufacture weaponry, planes, ships, etc. Wars and won and lost on the basis of logistics. The "innocent" civilians back home are manufacturing bombs, ships, munitions, etc. Their innocence is not absolute.
However, I will concede that truly innocent people were killed in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Truly innocent people were killed at Pearl Harbor, in the Philippines, Guam, and every other part of the Pacific that was invaded by Japan.
How morally superior is it to resist the call to defense, the call to end aggression, when doing so means that more innocent people will die?
And that's why i said wars can't be justifiable. You're just proving my point
Do you think the US should have responded to the attack on Pearl Harbor?
No war should have happened in the first place
Or at least they could attack a Japanese BASE instead of an entire city of civilians
You still don’t understand. If you are a pacifist, then the bullies win and take your stuff and rape you and then kill you when you are no longer beneficial to them.
I perfectly understand. I'm just pro peace
The point was to demonstrate the destructive capability of the nuclear weapon. And taking out a base near Tokyo or Kyoto would have killed millions. (And you don’t use a weapon like this to blow up a tiny peripheral island with no population). It was MEANT to kill a lot of people and be absolutely HORRIBLE. And you might just noticed that no cities have been nuked since these two!!! So 129,000 people’s lives destroyed instead of Russia using it on Washington DC or NYC. Or North Korea on Seoul. Or Pakistan on New Delhi.
You have the luxury of being a pacifist because someone else has assumed the responsibility of insuring your safety. If you were walking alone through the woods and a guy approached you and threatened to rape you, would you use force to resist him or would you allow him to do what he wanted to you?
I would definitely defend myself but I wouldn't think of trying to harm his family who haven't done anything to me
The ideal world of which you dream does not exist. You have remained in a cocoon of innocence and you are viewing the world in child-like terms. If every other occupant of the world held similar beliefs, the world could live at peace. However, there are people in the middle east who, if given the opportunity, would cut my head off just because I am a Christian. These people live in cities and they use the urban landscape as their battleground. Destroying villains sometimes causes harm or even death to innocent people. Such unintended consequences are rarely avoidable. Soldiers rarely look for opportunities to kill innocent civilians. You are not the only one who is motivated by morality and the fact that others see war as necessary does not mean that they are immoral.
Same applies to some people who hate Muslims. I know very well in what kind of world I live in. The question was pretty clear if those things are justified. No no violence can be justified and that's my own opinion which I have a right to have. I respect your opinion and no need to try to convince me otherwise. I stick to my own opinion and thank you for the discussion
“No[,] no violence can be justified...”
If someone comes and tries to mug me, putting me in a headlock, and I beat their ass, is MY violence justified? Apparently not according to you.
I respect your opinion, maybe we’ll have to agree to disagree...
Speak softly, but carry a big stick. If someone is trying to hurt you or someone else, your goal is to immediately disable their ability to do so, so that they cannot continue to harm you or anyone else. That means hitting back twice as hard so they stay down.
Well it was after all Japan's fault for turning a trade war (the embargo the USA placed on them) into a World War (attacking the USA without declaring war at least).
In addition, the USA had offered them the Postdam declaration more than twice and they refused. It was to surrender (unconditionally) already, no ifs nor buts.
Never!!! Japan was already comiited to withdraw, than why tge bomb? Show off your powers?
No it was not... today we know japan tried to give up, days before the bomb, but the americans used every tiny reason to test that bomb on humans...
Japan was already on its knees by the napalm bombings of all cities. And ready to capitulate.
The Abbomb was only dropped to stop the Russians from landing in Japan.
"Japan was already on its knees by the napalm bombings of all cities. And ready to capitulate."
They were offered a chance to capitulate well before the bombing. If theyyou accepted the conditions of the surrender in the Potsdam conference, there wouldn't have been any problem. But they didn't. They wanted to keep their occupied territories, as well as keeping the Imperial system, and they wanted to prosecute their war criminals themselves (which translates to "let's sweep it under the rug"). Thus they rejected the surrender.
Before the bombing, both cities were littered with flyers warning about the bombing.
No offense, but think about it this way. A small, weak guy approaches you at a bar. Grabs your girlfriend's butt.
You tell him "buddy, I give you a chance to let go of my girlfriend's ass. If you do, and you buy her a drink, I'll leave you alone, we're good"
He says "No, that's not gonna work", and keeps his hands on her butt.
You raise your fist, and tell him "Buddy, I'll punch you on the count of three if you don't let her go".
He doesn't.
You punch him.
Are you at fault here?
"The Abbomb was only dropped to stop the Russians from landing in Japan."
What? More like to pressure the Japanese into a quick surrender, instead of letting them negotiate with the Russians, and eventually retain their power.
@Benedek38 Just look at chronology:
Soviet invasion of Manchuria began on 9 August 9,1945
Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9, 1945
TRuman wanted to scare WHO?
And why would the Russians be scared of the Americans dropping a nuclear bomb?
@Benedek38 They didn't have it yet and Truman could drop the next one on the Red Army or on a Russian city.
That was the American message. Too bad if 225,000 Japanese more had too die.
Also, "just look at the dates"
End of Potsdam conference, where the conditions of surrender were determined for Japan:
August 2
Nuclear bombs: August 6 and 9
So... it could just as well be what I said.
I have no doubt that the US was in a race to get hold of Japan faster than the Russians, but just because the Russians had Manchuria, that doesn't mean they were anywhere near occupying Japan. In fact, they would have needed a whole D-day like operation to defeat the Japanese, so the Americans were in no hurry.
"Truman could drop the next one on the Red Army or on a Russian city. "
Russian. City.
The Russians weren't as bad at maths as you think. No plane going from America, or the Pacific, or the Atlantic could possibly reach any of the major Russian cities.
And as for the Red Army - anti-aircraft cannons.
Seriously, you believe the Japanese weren't scarred of the bomb... but the Russians were? LOL. Why didn't they drop it on Berlin then? The tests were successful, the bomb was functional. Undoubtedly Germany was a more valuable asset than Japan.
"That was the American message. Too bad if 225,000 Japanese more had too die."
I love when people want to make a point, so they take the highest estimate possible. The estimated number of deaths were 129-225 thousand. And 20000 were certainly soldiers.
@Benedek38 That plane could come from an American base in the UK
@Benedek38 Don't forget those who died from radio active exposure during the next 5 years.
These are not in US stats.
"That plane could come from an American base in the UK"
The range of a B29 superfortress is around 5000 km. The difference between London and Moscow is almost EXACTLY 2500 km, a bit more. So technically, if they are carrying almost no load, and they never hesitate a minute, everything goes perfectly, etc - they COULD maybe do it, but then that is almost certainly a suicide mission. So I am pretty sure taking turbulence, enemy air traffic, surveillance, etc into account, there is no way a superfortress could make it to Moscow without being taken down, or the plane having to emergency land somewhere on the way back.
"Don't forget those who died from radio active exposure during the next 5 years."
Do your own research. The radiation after a nuclear bomb is minimal. Even with only a fraction of the bomb actually engaging in chain reaction, the radiation was not even significant. Most people who died of radiation were in the zone of radiation, and are included in the casualities.
And I think Japan more than paid back the radiation to the world by leaking Fukushima into the ocean. That was WAAAAY worse in terms of radiation.
@Benedek38 don't forget the fallout, more dangerous than the remaining radiation in situ: www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/effects14.shtml
That is what I meant. The fallout of a nuclear bomb is insignificant compared to, say, the Chernobyl or Fukushima catastrophy. It's not even comparable. If you are not educated on the topic, I suggest brushing up on highschool physics, specifically nuclear fission. Short version, if the bomb is 100% effective, there is almost no residual radiation. That's kind of the point. The fact that the Little Boy and the Fat Man were badly primed, and only a fraction of their actual load exploded, is another business entirely. But even then, the radiation is no greater than if you ground down a small bundle. of uea ium rods, and sprinkled it over Hiroshima.
@Benedek38 don't minimize the killing of hundred thousands, please.
Hundreds of thousands didn't die from fallout though, don't bend the facts.