Open Daily Quickfire Debates!

[DeletedUser]

hey they worked!

They killed thousands of innocents. Men, women, children, all dead and they didn't even do anything.

I sincerely hope you're joking because it's obvious how oblivious you are if you think that nuking the entire Middle East would solve anything.
It's people like you that give the US a bad rep internationally; the image of extremely ignorant, border-line retarded MUH FREEDOM preaching insane people. It's people like you who scare me.

 

[Link of time]

It's people like you that give the US a bad rep internationally; the image of extremely ignorant, border-line retarded MUH FREEDOM preaching insane people. It's people like you who scare me.

Let's not stray away from the topic, please. *whispers* they did work...

 

[DeletedUser40768]

Yeah I am with Skully on this one, Shrefty. All we did was trade killing thousands of innocent Japans, in return for preventing thousands of soldiers from having to be sent there with a chance of death. Those people virtually had no chance and it destroyed the area for years. Shrefty is right though, it ended the war so it "worked" in that sense. Nukes wouldn't work, they kill the innocent and not the people actually committing the actions. In the Middle East all it would do would make the civilians hate us more, we definitely wouldn't be able to have any troops deployed their after we nuked one of their cities.

 

[Link of time]

I agree nuking the middle east won't solve anything except the start of WW III.

 

[DeletedUser19042]

Agreed with Skully. There were other solutions to ending the war. A lot of innocent people, people who had nothing to do with the war, and even disagreed with their government, died there. They didn't deserve it.

 

[DeletedUser29066]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15YgdrhrCM8

 

[Link of time]

And boom goes the dynamite

 

[DeletedUser]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were in my opinion two horrific events which were a horrific and bloody ends to justify a means. Japan were never going to surrender and the warfare that was going on in the island to island combat was extremely brutal and bloody. US and Japanese tactics resulted in a very high civilian casualty rate along with thousands upon thousands of troops both Japanese and American.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima brought the Japanese to there knees in the space of 5 days. The USA demonstrated their ability to systematically wipe out Japanese cities and finished the war. I believe if the USA didn't have a nuke, or didn't use it, the mortality count would be far higher at the end of the war than the 130,000 killed in the nuclear explosions.

In modern days we aren't fighting an enemy where we can use a nuclear bomb. ISIS normally hide in extremely rural areas or operate in urban areas. The enemy isn't one collective state where a nuclear bomb can bring them to surrender. ISIS are a number of different groups operating in dozens of cells which upon receiving orders operate individually to each other. Nuking known ISIS targets wouldn't achieve anything other than a hell of a lot of collateral and demands from NATO for the US to explain it's actions.

Nuking ISIS targets also wouldn't realistically achieve anything that the drone strikes on ISIS currently are. ISIS would actually benefit if we tried taking them out with nukes. The amount of western hatred this would generate in Syria wouldn't really benefit anything.

If we should nuke anything, it should be North Korea.

 

[DeletedUser29066]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were in my opinion two horrific events which were a horrific and bloody ends to justify a means. Japan were never going to surrender and the warfare that was going on in the island to island combat was extremely brutal and bloody.

For many years it was the official party line that the Japanese would defend the home islands to the death and that any invasion would have lead to hundreds of thousands of Allied (and thus mainly American) and also Japanese civilian casualties. I along with many others long thought this was the gospel truth. We wanted it to be true, because it was really the only thing that would have justified the use of atomic weapons. However, over the intervening years there have been many allegations that the Japanese were trying desperately to negotiate a surrender before the two bombs were dropped, but that for political reasons they were rebuffed. I sincerely hope that is not true.

 

[DeletedUser30636]

They killed thousands of innocents. Men, women, children, all dead and they didn't even do anything.

I sincerely hope you're joking because it's obvious how oblivious you are if you think that nuking the entire Middle East would solve anything.
It's people like you that give the US a bad rep internationally; the image of extremely ignorant, border-line retarded MUH FREEDOM preaching insane people. It's people like you who scare me.

well now your going to make me rant, look what you've done. just to reiterate Wave, without bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the death toll would have been much higher, if we take a look at the numbers, just about 200,000 thousand recorded deaths combined from both bombings. just over about 100,000 US soldiers died in the pacific. if those bombs had not been dropped, Both Japan and the US would have continued to fight, exhausting all resources. Leading to not only potentially more deaths, but maybe even famine. If you had to choose between your country losing more lives than your enemy, would you take the necessary actions to protect the land that your fighting for?

For many years it was the official party line that the Japanese would defend the home islands to the death and that any invasion would have lead to hundreds of thousands of Allied (and thus mainly American) and also Japanese civilian casualties. I along with many others long thought this was the gospel truth. We wanted it to be true, because it was really the only thing that would have justified the use of atomic weapons. However, over the intervening years there have been many allegations that the Japanese were trying desperately to negotiate a surrender before the two bombs were dropped, but that for political reasons they were rebuffed. I sincerely hope that is not true.

If this is true, which there is no real proof it is. There could have been many reasons why the attack continued. We weren't even alive then. I know this sounds like im just trying to protect my countries honor. But it is true. we do not know what really happens 90% of the time.

 

[DeletedUser]

For many years it was the official party line that the Japanese would defend the home islands to the death and that any invasion would have lead to hundreds of thousands of Allied (and thus mainly American) and also Japanese civilian casualties. I along with many others long thought this was the gospel truth. We wanted it to be true, because it was really the only thing that would have justified the use of atomic weapons. However, over the intervening years there have been many allegations that the Japanese were trying desperately to negotiate a surrender before the two bombs were dropped, but that for political reasons they were rebuffed. I sincerely hope that is not true.

If that is true then the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was the mass murder of innocent civilians by the USA to demonstrate their strength to the world. However if this was the truth I do believe, or I hope, that someone would've whistle blown.

Japanese culture before that point was 'fight to the death for your country' and I don't believe that the Japanese would've surrendered willingly.

 

[DeletedUser19042]

Well, on one side I actually follow Shrefty. By continuing the war without the bombs all resources would have been depleted, and the US would only have been on low strength to fight against the nazi's.

So, in the end it is possible that these bombs also changed history on the european fronts.

I still believe a lot of innocents were killed, and if I were an american it wouldn't be something I would be proud of.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well, on one side I actually follow Shrefty. By continuing the war without the bombs all resources would have been depleted, and the US would only have been on low strength to fight against the nazi's.

So, in the end it is possible that these bombs also changed history on the european fronts.

I still believe a lot of innocents were killed, and if I were an american it wouldn't be something I would be proud of.

Well at this time Germany had surrendered and it was just America fighting the war against Japan. This is why Germany escaped being nuked. Great timing on their part.

Lots of innocents were killed, but in a world war innocents always get killed. Innocents would've been killed in a prolonged war, and innocents were killed in the bombings.

As we are blessed with hindsight we can criticise the decision, but I believe we can all understand the rationale behind the decision to unleash the nuke. Japanese culture was one of 'fight to the death before surrender', and a prolonged war was going to cost hundreds of thousands of lives of American personnel, Japanese personnel and Japanese innocents.

That being said I'm a Canadian so I always do have a good old chuckle at the expense of America.

 

[DeletedUser19042]

True, I forgot about that.

Yet, the world would look different if it weren't for the bomb. Imagine how the cold war could have been differently if it weren't for MAD. Or that the russians knew that the US was willing to use their nuclear power.


I still do not approve it though.

 

[DeletedUser]

To be honest I doubt the cold war would've started or would've been as intense if not for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

[DeletedUser33530]

For many years it was the official party line that the Japanese would defend the home islands to the death and that any invasion would have lead to hundreds of thousands of Allied (and thus mainly American) and also Japanese civilian casualties. I along with many others long thought this was the gospel truth. We wanted it to be true, because it was really the only thing that would have justified the use of atomic weapons. However, over the intervening years there have been many allegations that the Japanese were trying desperately to negotiate a surrender before the two bombs were dropped, but that for political reasons they were rebuffed. I sincerely hope that is not true.

towards the end of the war the japan's government was highly divided. It was split between military die hards (who actually wanted to keep fighting even after the bombs were dropped) and more moderates who realized that they were utterly screwed over. I can't recall if this happened before or after the bombs dropped but at some point someone finally asked the emperor what he thought and he said he wanted peace as long as he kept his position. At first the US said that we weren't agreeing to anything (cause why would they at that point lol) and that Japan needed to surrender. Eventually we decided yeah whatever we won't mess with the emperor but our generals are really gonna be in charge. So unless i have my timeline messed up if the US had shown a more willingness to leave the emperor alone we probably wouldn't have had to drop the bombs cause Japan would have surrendered.

If that is true then the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was the mass murder of innocent civilians by the USA to demonstrate their strength to the world. However if this was the truth I do believe, or I hope, that someone would've whistle blown.

Japanese culture before that point was 'fight to the death for your country' and I don't believe that the Japanese would've surrendered willingly.

Japan had plans draw up that if an invasion began they would arm civilians will primitive weapons and have them charge at any Americans coming on the beaches. That was what they would have went to if we had invaded.

True, I forgot about that.

Yet, the world would look different if it weren't for the bomb. Imagine how the cold war could have been differently if it weren't for MAD. Or that the russians knew that the US was willing to use their nuclear power.


I still do not approve it though.

Assuming we had to invade Japan, (cause we didn't use the bomb) to start the cold war would have feature much of China under soviet control cause Stalin was using the Japanese occupation as an excuse to take as much land as he could. Soviets probably would have had some occupation over Japan as well since Stalin promised his troops to help on this front and he did prove he was willing to keep his word. So let your mind wander from there.

To be honest I doubt the cold war would've started or would've been as intense if not for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Oh it would have started still. Infact i would go so far to say it would have went hot if not for the fact that both sides knew that they would destroyed the freaking world.

 

[DeletedUser]

Oh it would have started still. Infact i would go so far to say it would have went hot if not for the fact that both sides knew that they would destroyed the freaking world.

One of the main reasons why there was a cold war was due to the fact that the Russians were not briefed on the American use of the nuclear bomb at Hiroshima. They didn't actually know that the Americans had successfully constructed one or had the capability to use it.

The shock waves that followed were not only of the nuclear variety but political. Stalin and the Russian aristocracy were shocked that the Americans had kept this technology from them, at this time they were allies.

As a result of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the Russians ramped up their nuclear timeline and developed and mass produced the weapon to counter the Americans. The Americans were threatened by Russia's mass production of the nuclear weapon and so the arms race and then the race to space developed.

All as a result of the fact that Stalin was not briefed by the Americans that they were about to bomb Hiroshima, an insult which was rubbed in by the fact that the French and English had been briefed.

 

[DeletedUser33530]

The main reason for the cold war was Stalin had occupied and put communist regimes in Eastern Europe. Also he was Stalin. The bomb was just a scary part of the cold war. It didn't start anything beyond an arms race that would have started anyway.

Dude, Stalin knew we making the bomb. There is no question that he knew. He might have been upset that we didn't tell him to his face right away but I doubt it. Also the Russian kept secrets from us too. So did the British. Everyone kept secrets.

Edit: did a quick fact check. First successful nuclear test was on July 16, 1945. We told stalin that we had "a new weapon of unusual destructive force" on July 24, 1945. Stalin really didn't care if you are interested in knowing. On August 6, 1945 Hiroshima was turned to rumble. Although Truman's description was vague as can be (but can you blame him) he did tell the Russians what the US had and that it would be used on Japan.

second edit: Although Truman's description was vague later that day Stalin ordered a telegram sent to those working on the atomic bomb in Russia to hurry with the job. So he knew what Truman meant.

 

[DeletedUser]

The main reason for the cold war was Stalin had occupied and put communist regimes in Eastern Europe. Also he was Stalin. The bomb was just a scary part of the cold war. It didn't start anything beyond an arms race that would have started anyway.

Dude, Stalin knew we had the bomb. There is no question that he knew. He might have been upset that we didn't tell him to his face right away but I doubt it. Also the Russian kept secrets from us too. So did the British. Everyone kept secrets.

The only reason the USSR started occupying Eastern European countries was 'to protect the motherland from America and western power'. The bomb started the arms race which resulted in russia occupying eastern countries to build a buffer between Europe and itself.

Stalin didn't know that the Americans had the nuclear bomb. It's a fact that many historians agree on. He is said to have been betrayed and shocked upon hearing about Hiroshima after it had happened.

Of course everyone kept secrets, however nothing as large as the nuclear weapon, and even then when they did use it they would warn their allies. For example America told England and France. I do believe America by doing that, as well in the aftermath to WW2 in it's distribution of Berlin and Germany. Set the tone for the next generation in a cold war between itself and Russia.

American media have demon-ised Russia but it was America not Russia throughout the cold war who threatened the other country directly at home. Through their quick advancement in the arms race and by pouring money into countries neighbouring Russia it threatened Russia directly. Up until the cuban missile crisis Russia didn't actually threaten America directly and it was just desperately trying to recover from the significant advantage that the Americans had developed through developing the atomic bomb first.

 

[DeletedUser33530]

The only reason the USSR started occupying Eastern European countries was 'to protect the motherland from America and western power'. The bomb started the arms race which resulted in russia occupying eastern countries to build a buffer between Europe and itself.

Ok 'to protect the motherland from America and western power' was political bs and you know it. Stalin occupied the countries cause he wanted power and yeah it did help protect him.

Stalin didn't know that the Americans had the nuclear bomb. It's a fact that many historians agree on. He is said to have been betrayed and shocked upon hearing about Hiroshima after it had happened.

read my edits on the post you quoted

Of course everyone kept secrets, however nothing as large as the nuclear weapon, and even then when they did use it they would warn their allies. For example America told England and France. I do believe America by doing that, as well in the aftermath to WW2 in it's distribution of Berlin and Germany. Set the tone for the next generation in a cold war between itself and Russia.

The US did warn Russia (check my edits). Also if we are talking what the biggest secret was i would like to put the naughty document on the table.

American media have demon-ised Russia but it was America not Russia throughout the cold war who threatened the other country directly at home. Through their quick advancement in the arms race and by pouring money into countries neighbouring Russia it threatened Russia directly. Up until the cuban missile crisis Russia didn't actually threaten America directly and it was just desperately trying to recover from the significant advantage that the Americans had developed through developing the atomic bomb first.

I think America might have had the right to demonize Stalin. Maybe not the country as a whole but it's American media we are insane not much you can do there.
Russia had a bunch of eastern European states protecting it. The only country we could have poured money into that was actually next to it and wasn't in desperate need of money was Turkey. So it was one country. But if we do count the rest of the countries we poured money into I'll be happy to point out that the whole of Europe was essentially rumble.
Well the Cuban missile thing was the only time the US and USSR ever really threatened each other directly. Most of the time it was indirect threats.
Desperately trying to catch up? Yeah much of their industrialized regions were recked but it took them what 4 years to get the atom bomb after the US got one.