Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In warfare a good strategic move. It kept the Russian out of Japan proper although they did take Karafuto and the Chishimas. It ended the war before the Russians could make a bug move on Japan as they did in Korea. It may have saved many American servicemens lives although according to Japanese history that was not true. however in either direction it is highly speculative.
As far as humane treatment of non-combatants it was not a very good thing because the radiation poisoning and other effects are still being felt by the people of Hiroshima in the manner of deformed births and an extraordinary surge of cancer in the affected area.
This has been debated to death here. I think we've worn out the topic after 35+ pages of discussing every angle and contingency on the Hiroshima issue. Next topic?
How is the bombing of Hiroshima any different than the bombings of Hamburg and Dresden? Immediate deaths in those cities were estimated to be 50,000-60,000 people. And, while figures vary wildly on the Rape of Nanking, a range from 150,000-300,000 civilians is where almost all historians place their estimates.
In Nanking, all those civilians were killed with bullets and bayonets. In Hamburg and Dresden, they either died from the immediate effects of the explosions or were incinerated in the resulting firestorm.
So why is the Hiroshima bombing any more immoral or outrageous than the untold numbers of civilians killed by conventional means? I really have never heard a good argument for the manifest immorality of atomic weapons versus conventional weapons.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
This has been debated to death here. I think we've worn out the topic after 35+ pages of discussing every angle and contingency on the Hiroshima issue. Next topic?
How is the bombing of Hiroshima any different than the bombings of Hamburg and Dresden? Immediate deaths in those cities were estimated to be 50,000-60,000 people. And, while figures vary wildly on the Rape of Nanking, a range from 150,000-300,000 civilians is where almost all historians place their estimates.
In Nanking, all those civilians were killed with bullets and bayonets. In Hamburg and Dresden, they either died from the immediate effects of the explosions or were incinerated in the resulting firestorm.
So why is the Hiroshima bombing any more immoral or outrageous than the untold numbers of civilians killed by conventional means? I really have never heard a good argument for the manifest immorality of atomic weapons versus conventional weapons.
It's bad because the US did it.
The bulk of the people with strongly critical views of Hiroshima being unneccessary are Japanese, Europeans with strong communist views or that were from countires that fought for the axis. Also a number of US apologists but those tend to be anti-government or green types that hate anything nuclear and thus form an opinion based on that but lack any real knowledge of the history and more complex issues.
A number of countries that did truly heinous things like to try to use Hiroshima as some sort of moral equivalency, "well the US nuked Japan when they didn't have to" is a great smokescreen when criticized over killing millions of jews or chinese etc.
How is the bombing of Hiroshima any different than the bombings of Hamburg and Dresden? Immediate deaths in those cities were estimated to be 50,000-60,000 people. And, while figures vary wildly on the Rape of Nanking, a range from 150,000-300,000 civilians is where almost all historians place their estimates.
In Nanking, all those civilians were killed with bullets and bayonets. In Hamburg and Dresden, they either died from the immediate effects of the explosions or were incinerated in the resulting firestorm.
So why is the Hiroshima bombing any more immoral or outrageous than the untold numbers of civilians killed by conventional means? I really have never heard a good argument for the manifest immorality of atomic weapons versus conventional weapons.
I guess you didn't read the second paragraph of my post above. Here it is again,
As far as humane treatment of non-combatants it was not a very good thing because the radiation poisoning and other effects are still being felt by the people of Hiroshima (today) in the manner of deformed births and an extraordinary surge of cancer in the affected area.
Such condition did not and do not exist with the fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo. Those are questions of immediate deaths resulting from the bombing. Hiroshima on the other hand is still suffering casualties today as a result of the bombing that took place there..
I guess you didn't read the second paragraph of my post above. Here it is again,
As far as humane treatment of non-combatants it was not a very good thing because the radiation poisoning and other effects are still being felt by the people of Hiroshima (today) in the manner of deformed births and an extraordinary surge of cancer in the affected area.
Such condition did not and do not exist with the fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo. Those are questions of immediate deaths resulting from the bombing. Hiroshima on the other hand is still suffering casualties today as a result of the bombing that took place there..
I did. I felt the logic was spurious.
Death is death. How is death by being exposed to radiation any different that the excruciating, lingering death of third-degree burns?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
