Login/Sign Up




Was the U.S right to bomb Japan twice in world war II
History

bulls7395
Aug 12, 2010
19 votes
12 debaters
7
4
3
1
1
1
1


+ Add Argument

11
It was needed


watchman81
Aug 14, 2010
3 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: revron77 Show

This argument is absurd. If one agrees that dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it does not logically follow that they must agree with Hitler carrying out the holocaust. Regardless of whether or not Japan's air and naval capabilities, they were not going to surrender anytime soon. There is no evidence that supports this. If they WERE going to surrender, they most definately would have done it after the first bomb was dropped. The idea that we used the atomic bomb to save money is just silly. It was done to save the lives that most definately would have been snuffed out as a result of a prolonged war.

And dropping the bomb was NOT genocide. Whether it was right or wrong is a different argument, but it most certainly was not an act of genocide. We were not attempting to wipe out the Japanese. If we were, we would not have allowed the war to end even after dropping the bombs.

 
larryt700
Aug 15, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thomasonmb1 Show

You absolutely lost points on your argument because a couple of numbers have been forgotten in the argument of "was the bomb necessary." China lost 20 million people, nine million civilians were killed by the Japanese BEFORE we even entered the war. Russia lost 16 to 20 million with 6 million by Japan.... So, it was not justified because they lost as many as we did????? That argument is stupid when they invaded us... Lemme see, they lost 1 man per 5000 civilians when they invaded China??? So your ridiculous argument "they were losing more than we were" is absolutely ABSURD! We weren't invading two countries at the time and THEY WERE/DID!

 
gatorsf80
Aug 17, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: stof Show

Name me 1 war post WW2, that had higher mortality rate than what it was in WW2. You cannot. It was the last major war. With atomic power, and two bombs dropped on Japan. People soon realized that with atomic war, WW2 casualty reports would be dwarfed at best. It is the unfortunate but necessary act of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that made people realized it. The war in Japan was not won yet, Ask the Japanese, do some research, Imperial Japan was not in the business of surrender. USA beat Germany? it took USA, Britain, France, Dutch, Russia, Canada, Australia.... so many countries to beat the Nazi Germans. The two cities were not chosen because of their civilian population, they were chosen because of strategic military production factory. About 200,000 people died x2 for cancer related radiations... How many people were bombed by air bombards by allies on German cities? how many did Germans kills. How many Chinese were slaughters by Japaneses, Japan killed civilians in millions. So did Germany, so Did the allies. This was war.

Why do you think we had not had more nuclear attacks since that??? with no check and balances in countries like N Korea, Russia, Cuba at a time. What if Nazi Germany, or Imperial Japan had the nukes do you think they would hesitate to use it for the first time? Being Naive does not make things right or justifiable.

 
flyboy1996
Nov 06, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Of course it was right Japan wouldn't quit any other way. Its their fault as well, they were the ones who bombed pearl harbor. they were the ones who tortured countless american POWs and finally they didn't surrender when the U.S demanded them to! so there. Japan had several oprotunities to avoid the nuclear bomb but they were too arrogant to take those opprotunities.

 
elros
Aug 15, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Maybe dropping the bomb the first time was wrong. Maybe it wasnt. But once it was dropped a second one HAD to be dropped. The US had to prove that it could unleash such an incredible weapon at will, not just once. Additionally, the first bomb could very likely have galvanized the Japanese resolve, and as was demonstrated by Kamakazi attacks and accounts of civilians jumping off cliffs to avoid American occupation Japanese resolve was something of a major concern.

So did we need to drop the bomb twice? Yes.

 
gatorsf80
Aug 16, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: stof Show

It was justified in context to end the world. The last high casualty war was WW2. Why? because if the bombs were dropped, the Russian were developing nukes. If the bombs were dropped, it's likely that Russians would have used it to wipe off South Korea. you would have a serious escalation... this is not slippery slope... the history of warfare indicates that as soon as new weapons are discovered, they are used in war, up to the point were super power had agreements. Don't compare Holocaust by Nazi to bombing of Japan. the arguments of "two wrongs does not make it right" or "turn the other cheek: -- does not work in real world. If it did we hardly would have any wars. the only things that works in the world is balance of power, deterrence, intimidation. It was necessary to drop the two bombs, even if more bombs had to be dropped. Civilian life loss is always regrettable. but "sometime it takes to take lives, to save thousands."

 
larryt700
Aug 16, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: stof Show

Why don't you open your brain and make two columns....

In one column make it the number of people who were killed by conventional means, as in the war that would probably still be going on today if the bombs were not dropped...

Then the other column with the number of people killed and even injured (I will give you a booster seat since you will need one with this argument) and see which one wins out, PLUS considering those evil bad and horrific bombs ENDED the war.....

 
larryt700
Aug 17, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thomasonmb1 Show

Ooops, I forgot... Libtard and open mind is an oxymoron... Sorry USA hater, didn't mean to interrupt your blissful rant.

That's like a mindless libtard... Ignore the facts and refer to memoirs and economics.... Pathetic

 
larryt700
Aug 17, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thomasonmb1 Show

El idiota hace ni cree la verdad si lo dije que nagasaki e Hiroshima fueron seleccionados porque tuvieron las fábricas de la guerra y no para sus poblaciones

 
larryt700
Aug 18, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thomasonmb1 Show

And, you forgot that you are still an idiot... (No sarcasm)

 
larryt700
Aug 18, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thomasonmb1 Show

WOW....That statement makes you a non-idiot... (EXTREME SARCASM)

 
larryt700
Aug 18, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thomasonmb1 Show

You're still an idiot.... (No sarcasm)

 
gatorsf80
Aug 18, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: stof Show

"I'm sure that whoever who came up with the bombing plan didn't say, oh let's do it for the next generations so they can learn how bad nuclear (atomic) war is." True, but the consequence worked in preventing future occurrence. So they didn't plan or know it at the time, but the fact remains that the consequence were not worse than what they could have been.

"You claim that bombing the cities was strategic because the cities contained weapon factories..." Don't confuse Asymmetric guerrilla warfare with WW2 battles of relatively equal strength (when all forces are considered - if they were not equal strength, and countries did utilize their advantage the war would not have lasted 5+ years ). The military tactics between the two are very different.

"what makes an act right or wrong is the causes of it not the results of it, because sometimes even if the results of something are good the way we accomplish that thing might not be good." -- best line of your argument.

In other words, you're saying even if the cause is right, sometimes the price we pay to get there is too costly.
This is true sometime, but not always. However, sometimes we have to pay a costly price to accomplish something good.



 
gatorsf80
Aug 19, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: stof Show

LOL @ gorilla war.

"Considering the fact that German weaponry was much more advanced than the Japanese one, why not to bomb the German factories (regardless) of the civilian losses. Knowing also that Germans were the biggest menace as I�m sure nazi�s took more lives than any other nation concerned with that war. I�m just trying to exclude the strategic possibility for there were many other targets that could finish the war earlier and with less casualties. "

German factories were bombed much more heavily than Japan was. No nukes were used. By the time the nukes become operational, the war in Europe was over. the over in Japan was still going on. Give some credit to USA government decision making. Maybe it was also a little payback for Pearl Harbor, yet, it would have not been the primary decision.

Were there other alternatives? Yes, but they required more life loss from the American side. American public did not want to drag the war furthermore with Japan. Japanese are honor people, Defeat was not honorable for Imperial Japan. Targeting civilians -- means dropping weapons on areas with no strategic importance, to punish the opposition -- this was not the case. Otherwise USA could not have justified these actions. As you said, there is a difference between cause, and results. The military campaign of "big wars" is such that the military can pretty much justify itself.... civilians dead=Collateral damage, Shot your own troops=friendly fire, Soldiers killed due to equipment malfunction=an accident. Soldiers died in active hostile environment = brave heroic soldiers... All the military have to prove, that targets were legit, they did their best in minimizing civilian damage... A little bit different from modern warfare, where the rules of engagement say don't fire at combatants dressed at terrorist, unless being fired upon first...


 
gatorsf80
Aug 20, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: stof Show

We agree that targeting civilians is wrong. Which is why my argument says USA did not target civilians when they nuked Japan. Again, read the argument, we dropped on Japan and not on Germany because, when we had operational nukes, German battle over, Japanese not over. I'll give you another reason, we didn't think or know on the consequence of dropping nukes at the time. Failure to realize that, is called "Historical Bias" That is looking at the events after the fact. However, the next person that drops nukes will not get away without it, unless that nation did not have any other choice -- This is modern way of thinking. WW2 thinking... We sick of our troops dying it's time to end the war...

 
gatorsf80
Aug 23, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: stof Show

"oh please the nation that developed the bomb have no idea what kind of damage it can make!!! " -- not not really, they were testing nukes in other areas, but never on people, so they didn't know that nukes will cause so much damage! -- Dropping on Japan was because the war with Japan was not over -- you seem to agree with that notion.
Experimenting bomb? Yes, as a secondary reason. Humans in general have more than one reason of doing things. Countries experiment new weapons all the times, except with nukes it could have been done once... and history shows that's correct. You seem in capable of realizing that civilians deaths is fact of war. and at the same time, no Geneva convention about barring nukes from use were present at the time. "what we did wrong" -- again Historical bias. At the time the action was taken, it was not wrong. We had to say it was wrong, to establish relation with Japan. Ever heard of compromise? Surely, the politicians of today, will say it was wrong and mean it, but it does NOT mean, had they been the decision makers at that time, with knowledge they knew then, that the outcome would have been different.


Articles 51 and 54 outlaw indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations, and destruction of food, water, and other materials needed for survival. Indiscriminate attacks include directly attacking civilian (non-military) targets, but also using technology such as biological weapons, nuclear weapons and land mines, whose scope of destruction cannot be limited.[5] A total war that does not distinguish between civilian and military targets is considered a war crime.... Which year you ask was this article written? 1977
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_I

 
gatorsf80
Aug 24, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: stof Show

Yes, the Manhattan Project research took time, but nukes were not the only result, we discovered new element, got nuclear power, noble Prices were given out... and yes, people died from radiation, but again at the time they could not connect the dots that it due to radiation exposure, they might have their hunches but with new science comes the consequences.... Anyways it's a different argument.

To sum your argument, you agree that they "didn't know it was wrong at the time". Since geneva convention was not ratified at the time to include nukes, there were no established guidelines -- we seem to agree on this point as well.

My point using nukes today would only be OK under last resort policy (because of what we know today) This is the official stance of USA policy. But in the context of WW2 it had to be done -- which is what this argument is about.

let me give you an analogy you should understand. because you have difficulty understanding things in a historical context. Say today we try to make contact with alien life -- we think it's OK because we are trying to reach others in space. Say 50+ years later we track an alien spacecraft with superior weapons who seek to destroy planet earth... 50+ years from now, you would say what we did was wrong, we should have known better. We had Steven hawking warning us.... Good luck convincing state dept. now that we should cease all attempted contact with ET

BTW not my fiction argument it's paraphrase from Steven Hawking. and though purely theoretical, it is possible.

 
gatorsf80
Aug 24, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: stof Show

Yes, the Manhattan Project research took time, but nukes were not the only result, we discovered new element, got nuclear power, noble Prices were given out... and yes, people died from radiation, but again at the time they could not connect the dots that it due to radiation exposure, they might have their hunches but with new science comes the consequences.... Anyways it's a different argument.

To sum your argument, you agree that they "didn't know it was wrong at the time". Since geneva convention was not ratified at the time to include nukes, there were no established guidelines -- we seem to agree on this point as well.

My point using nukes today would only be OK under last resort policy (because of what we know today) This is the official stance of USA policy. But in the context of WW2 it had to be done -- which is what this argument is about.

let me give you an analogy you should understand. because you have difficulty understanding things in a historical context. Say today we try to make contact with alien life -- we think it's OK because we are trying to reach others in space. Say 50+ years later we track an alien spacecraft with superior weapons who seek to destroy planet earth... 50+ years from now, you would say what we did was wrong, we should have known better. We had Steven hawking warning us.... Good luck convincing state dept. now that we should cease all attempted contact with ET

BTW not my fiction argument it's paraphrase from Steven Hawking. and though purely theoretical, it is possible.

 
gatorsf80
Aug 24, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
In Historical background -- it was done -- this is history. The question of post-analysis ask was the decision correct? Well in order to answer the question we must compare the facts (of what really happened) vs the hypothetical assumption of what most likely would have happened (our best guess estimate). It is therefore my (I'm not historian) and other historian educated guess that the outcome would have been:

Japan would have potentially split up like other post-war countries like Germany, West and East Europeans
as the Soviets would most certainly have played a part in the final outcome or any land invasion.
it's a safe bet to assume that more people would have died. We can debate that all we want, But the bottom line is pretty much would have resulted in American lives lost had we don't drop the bombs.... Such is war. Better them than us. This has been true in Korea post WW2.

Let's look if Japan would have been better-off under Soviet rule? like the North Korea, like the burden of East Germany on West Germany. Like the poorer Eastern European countries under Soviet influence...

i just gave a very sound argument, how the Japanese benefited from surrender to the States, actions which would not have been possible without nukes -- as the war would have already continued. Think of the great contributions we enjoyed from Japan, it might not have been possible without N. Japan involvement.

Soviets at the time were run by Stalin - a madman who destroyed his own country prior to Germany attacking it. Yet, he is credited with industrializing a peasant nation during WW2...



 
gatorsf80
Aug 24, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Why two bombs? because one was not enough.It is difficult to make a serious argument that the bomb on Hiroshima was too much when it took a second bomb on Nagasaki to get Japan to surrender.


look up Operation downfall, and the estimation of casualties...and tell me that nukes did not save million of lives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall


 
boyd
Mar 23, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
During World War II, the U.S. began plans on how to win The War in the Pacific (war against Japan). The intial plans expected losses of up to 2,000,000 american soilders. Japan runs under a "never surrender" lifestyle type tactic. So the U.S. new that it would be a struggle. So after intense bombing raids in many Japanese citys, with the complete of the Manhatten Project, the U.S. bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic bombs within 3 days of each other, trying to prevent the casualties of the U.S. in the upcoming campaigns.

It worked didnt it?

 
mooneythunderpaws
Mar 25, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
If we didn't have the war would have been more devastated and countries around Japan would be under Tyrannical rule. It stopped the Japanese from attacking the States and stopped Japan from trying to take over the U.S. But it was sad for the innocent people who lost there lives from the bombing.

 
jsmiggins
Apr 29, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I love watching these armchair military historians sit back and argue how it was so bad that we dropped atomic bombs on Japan to end the war. I'm really sure that if it was 1945, they'd be on the frontline in a land invasion of Japan. After all, we sure wouldn't want to kill more civilians than necessary and the best way to do that is by sacrificing our soldiers who have already gone through hell, right?

The bottom line is that Japan was the enemy. This was before they were flooding our stores with Hello Kitty and anime. They were the enemy and they weren't surrendering. A land invasion would've cost many more lives, especially American ones, and obviously nobody wanted that. After the first bomb they should've surrendered as fast as possible. They have themselves to blame for the second.

 
+ Add Argument

8
it was wrong


revron77
Aug 14, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Under the League of Nations laws, set at the time. That broke basic human rights boundaries. If we are to agree to this, then we must agree that Hitler had to kill the Jews to better Germany. Japan at the time had lost their air and naval capabilities. The bomb was not to save life’s, but to save money. Killing civilians can never be justified. That was a genocide.

 
thomasonmb1
Aug 15, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
I actually did an essay on this exact question in my modern history coursework. From what i can remember i came to the conclusion that it was unneccesary for the USA to bomb Japan twice. This was because Japan was already drastically short of resources. It was losing many more men in the war then the USA. Also i think i lost some marks in trying to argue that America dropped the bomb to represent its transition from a significant power to a global superpower.

 
stof
Aug 16, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
I completely believe that US bomb dropping was not justified; not two, not even one.
I don’t think it’s about the size of losses or military tactics…, I just think that morally it was just a wrong move to do. I would understand if the casualties of civilians weren’t that high.
If we consider that nazi’s crimes towards jews were wrong: so is dropping two atomic bombs on two cities filled with civilians; some would say “the end justify the mean”, the war has to come to an end: yes, but you do forget why there was a war at the first place. We claimed to be freedom fighters, fighters of oppression… heroes, is it heroic to drop two bombs on civilians.
Sorry but I don’t see how bombing two cities was ‘needed’, the war woulda end eventually, the only nation that was still fighting was japan, fighting ‘alone’ against the rest of the world…, if we could beat the mighty germans with no atomic bombs, we sure coulda beat the Japanese, so no that was not justified.


 
thomasonmb1
Aug 17, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: larryt700 Show

How did i know it would be the paronoid republican. Hello again let's us erm, what's the word try to discuss this in a rational way. If you were in a real debate, you would be absolutely helpless, because of your insistence on your using emotive language, and abusing the opponent unneccearily. The art of debate demands strong, constructed and persuasive argument, not merely abusing the opposition and pulling facts from 'unseen' sources. (I also admit that your facts are probably close enough to the truth.' The title of the debate, just to make you aware because i'm not sure you are is should the 'USA' have dropped the atomic bomb on Japan 'twice'. I don't think it's neccasary to include the USSR's and China's contribution, but as you mention it Japan were being heavily defeated by the Russians in Manchuria, and eventually lost the province. the Chinese resistance confounded the Japanese as it gradually became stronger and stronger. The leadership was split on tactics for the war. The USA had quite literally destroyed it's navy. It had balanced the economy on the edge of the knife, meaning inflation had sky rocketed and the people were becoming increasingly discontent with lack of food and resources. It's miltary was de-motivated. It's attempts to colonise Indonesia and the Phillipines had failed full stop. It was already negotiating with the British and the Americans the terms of it's surrender at the beginning of 1945. It's enemies were closing in around it, it was merely a matter of time. Truman knew that Stalin had found out about the Manhattan project. America were already very afraid of the Russians, and russia dubious about Americans. Put it this way. Many historians argue about the exact date of the start of the cold war. There is no real start date as it is hard to pin point, due to the nature of the war. But there are those historians who pinpoint the date as being 6th August 1945. If you want more proof of that, try to find Stalin's memoirs of that particular day, see what he thought America's intentions were. Also members of that American Administration memoirs were interesting. Now back to the actual question. Were Two bombs neccasary, on an abject, disillusioned, scared, surrounded regime. My answer remains no. My vote is cast. Debate on this matter is utterly frivolous. Should there just have been one bomb. Perhaps. Or ask yourself this question. Would you coming to the end of the bloodiest war in history, knowing you had the ability to unleash the most powerful force known to man, let the war reach its inevitable conclusion, or end it to save American troops, and show your other enemies who's in command. NO HISTORIAN DOUBTS THAT THE 6th of AUGUST 1945 REPRESENTED AMERICAS TRANSISTION TO VERY POWERFUL ECONOMIC POWERHOUSE TO GLOBAL SUPERPOWER. Let's face it ever since that moment America can't stop snooping at the rest of the world can they. (Forgive the appearance of this text, it's deleted the paragraphs)

 
stof
Aug 17, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gatorsf80 Show

i can probably name about 20 wars that involved more than two parts after the ww2 I can name lots of modern wars as well, so dropping the bombs was not a well learned lesson and as george Bernard shaw said ’we learned from experience that man never learn anything from experience’, later on some countries lost millions during other wars, dropping the bomb ended the war: yes, i can also name lots of previous and next wars that ended without dropping any bombs over civilians, as for killing some to save more, how about saving more without killing some?, or at least not killing innocent civilians.
it’s not about military tactics, because dropping a bomb on civilians is a lousy military tactic, it’s not about ending the war, if we could beat the mighty germans we for sure could beat a stand-alone japan, the war was already won before the bomb dropping, the rest was just details. it’s not either about intimidating other major forces, that’s is terrorist style we’re not terrorists are we?, we don’t set examples by killing civilians to warn others not to mess with us. It’s not about how have nuclear bomb or not, assuming that Russia had one and assuming that she might bomb south korea with it, we don’t bomb two cities filled with civilians because of an assumption or a hunch, if that is the case iran have nuclear power let’s bomb cuba, does this make any sence? And by the way even if that ‘hunch’ about Russia was right, Russia didn’t drop any bomb did she.
It’s nothing but about :’was it right or wrong’, it was simply wrong, there is nothing in the world that could justify such thing.


 
stof
Aug 18, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gatorsf80 Show

You just named a consequence of dropping the bombs during ww2, and I must say I’m not 100% sure it is a consequence and that is because in other wars after ww2, bombs were dropped, but not atomic and not nuclear ones, and the reason why: is that now almost everyone owns nuclear power, and if any nation would use nuclear power on a war the other side will do the same, and then the allies, and then the Armageddon; as I’m sure that whoever who came up with the bombing plan didn’t say, oh let’s do it for the next generations so they can learn how bad nuclear (atomic) war is.
You claim that bombing the cities was strategic because the cities contained weapon factories, well in modern warfare destroying the economy of the enemy is a very strategic plan to win a war, but that doesn’t justify 9/11 for example (considering that we are the enemies of terrorists) does it?
It is true that every war has its casualties, just imagine the number of dead and wounded people in the 100 years war that lasted more than 100 years, though it wasn’t noticeable as killing a huge number of people in minutes, but still it was a huge number…
Yes in ww2 people were killed by other means than the bombs, and yes maybe if the Nazis had the bomb they woulda use it, but we’re not Nazis, you see what makes an act right or wrong is the causes of it not the results of it, because sometimes even if the results of something are good the way we accomplish that thing might not be good.


 
thomasonmb1
Aug 18, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: larryt700 Show

Once again an inadequate response from an inadequate debater. I mean there's me thinking that for once that someone who has somehow managed to convince a hundred odd people that there would be argument which puts his views into perspective. But no all we've managed to gather from larryt is that he hates liberals, he reinforces the views of his other right wing counterparts on this site, and that he's a blind patriot. Just the right sort of person to debate issues. (sarcasm)

 
thomasonmb1
Aug 18, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: larryt700 Show

wow truly spectacular debating skills. just call the opponent an idiot, then offer up some travesty of an argument. why don't you become a journalist for a right wing tabloid and spread your memes some other way.

 
stof
Aug 19, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gatorsf80 Show

I’m completely aware that gorilla wars are totally different than big wars, the gorillas go for fast execution and short campaigns, but big wars is about complicated tactics and long term warfare. That was not what I meant at all, what I meant is that the end does not justify the mean, the whole planet would agree that beside the number of casualties and lost the consequences of the ww2 are just amazing (although some were not planned), just stopping the Nazi’s is a huge accomplishment.
Considering the fact that German weaponry was much more advanced than the Japanese one, why not to bomb the German factories (regardless) of the civilian losses. Knowing also that Germans were the biggest menace as I’m sure nazi’s took more lives than any other nation concerned with that war. I’m just trying to exclude the strategic possibility for there were many other targets that could finish the war earlier and with less casualties.
Back to the point of targeting civilians (although you might say that civilians were not targeted but the factories were but we all know and they all know that the two cities contained a mass population of civilians), the geneva conventions (fourth one) clearly determines that civilians should not be targeted during war, although it was adapted after ww2 but that doesn’t mean that targeting civilians was right before the convention itself.
PS : (would you please notify me if there is an interesting debate going on, i'll do the same for you, there are a lot of stupid topics, so it's really hard to find a good one like this one)

 
stof
Aug 20, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gatorsf80 Show

Well yes german factories were bombed heavily but not by atomic or nuclear bombs, but not with mass destruction weapons. I’d rather to say it’s more of a payback for pearl harbour than a strategic act. But still that doesn’t make it right, I’m not saying that having revenge as a motive is wrong that is a whole different debate (maybe an interesting one) but at some point the whole world recognized that targeting civilians during war is wrong, that’s why the Geneva convention even exists, we got away with Nagasaki and Hiroshima since it occurred before the convention itself, but so did the Nazis with their own mess, some of them at least.
About the Japanese honour, well I agree Japanese find defeat not honourable, but that compared with nazi’s ideology is nothing, nazi’s considered the rest of the world lower than them, they wouldn’t settle for just winning but they would go through it until finishing all the other ‘lower races’, now that is something dangerous to fight against. But still we dropped the bomb over japan… (I’m not saying we should have dropped them over germany that would lead to the same result: lots of civilians casualties…)
Dropping the bombs was not the only bad call the men in charge took back then, the Normandy event cost the allies lots of lives and losses, but that is a whole different topic…
Just and random note: looking like a terrorist doesn’t mean being a terrorist (I’m sure you didn’t mean the opposite, right?)
At 1949 the whole world admitted, at some point, that targeting civilians during war is wrong, it was wrong since the even before we admitted it, we were just too late.


 
stof
Aug 24, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gatorsf80 Show

Everyone knows that manufacturing such bomb would expose scientists, workers, every one who got close to the bomb to radiations, then all the syndromes that I’m sure you know about: cancer, losing hair….and some of this syndromes can not be missed, I’m not assuming that making a bomb took one week so they might miss that, I’m sure it took some time… so maybe you should review your ‘they didn’t know argument’.
I’m glad you got familiar with articles of the convention, as you witnessed yourself: using nukes is a wrong and you know already the reason why. The article on 1977 came late, yes, but that only shows that we are so dumb to not realise what’s right or wrong immediately.
As for Geneva convention itself, well yes it’s a fact it didn’t exist back then, but later when it was created it was because of the horrible things done in ww2, including nuking Japan.
The non-existence of the convention in 1945 doesn’t mean well, it wasn’t wrong yet, for centuries people thought the earth was the centre of the universe, there was no astronomy back then, but they we established that they were wrong, and so was bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


 
stof
Aug 25, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gatorsf80 Show

Well I don’t believe in the existence of aliens (this is another topic to debate some other time if you think aliens exist) but I’d go along with you because I have a feeling this debate is going to an end soon.
You gave this tremendous example starting with the word ‘say …’, I’ll give you the same example with a different version, say today we tried to made contact with aliens, 50 years later we find an alien (ship, planet…), and they do have much advanced weapon power than in your example, so we nuke them, then we find out that these aliens are Buddhist: they wouldn’t harm a living thing…
I believe it was Theodor Roosevelt who said ‘if I must choose between peace and righteousness, I choose righteousness ’, these are words from the president who went through war, and as you see he’d only give up on peace for righteousness. So unless we are 100% right about the fact that aliens will destroy earth, it will be wrong to nuke them.
So back to the main topic, I believe that your rebuttal is about when I said that they knew the dangers of the bombs, since who ever who got close to the bomb during manufacturing would be exposed to radiations, you said that they didn’t know that the people died but they didn’t know it was because of radiations, but still they dropped them, we humans freak out about a mysterious death when we open an Egyptian grave with a warning of a curse or a bad omen, but we don’t have to investigate why people died while making a nuclear bomb? I find that hard to believe. The result now is that they witnessed dangers death, cancers…) just by having a contact with a bomb, and still they dropped it, that’s a whole new low level. I wasn’t even intending to go there.
You said with science comes the consequences, I say with science comes responsibilities.
Before they dropped the bombs they did some experiments in los Alamos, so they did know how much damage it can be done with it, so, so far they were aware about what they were doing, later Dr Robert Oppenheimer said ‘I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.’ He realized what went wrong, and that his invention was misused …


 
stof
Aug 23, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gatorsf80 Show

So you agree that targeting civilians is wrong, but you claim that we didn’t target civilians in Japan: is this means that we didn’t know that there were civilians in two of the biggest cities in Japan? I bet that even someone back then at 1945 who is not related to war and who is far away from being in intelligence or in the army itself knew that two of the biggest cities in Japan do actually contain a mass number of civilians. “We didn’t think or know the consequence of dropping nukes at the time”, oh please the nation that developed the bomb have no idea what kind of damage it can make!!!
“we dropped on Japan and not on Germany because, when we had operational nukes, German battle over, Japanese not over.” The war ended in germany but not japan we bombed japan, if the war has ended in japan we would bomb …??? This sounds like experimenting the bomb, it could be anyone we were just determined to bomb someone…
I’m very sure that before they drop’em they didn’t say: let’s do it for history so people of the future learn how bad nukes are.
The fact remains that we dropped bombs on two cities with a large number of population, and it’s absurd to say that we didn’t know that there were civilians there. The other fact is that targeting civilians is wrong we admitted it later even if it was too late, so that makes just what we did wrong and yes we got away with it.

 
pgandal
Mar 25, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: mooneythunderpaws Show

So what are you arguing? The only way the war would've kept going (with Japan taking over pacific islands) would be if the Americans quit the war. The question, as I see it, is about whether nuking cities was necessary. Conventional tactics could have been used.

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

martin luther king jr. races racism rights segregation skin color civil rights Empire government history hitler nazi power Rome war WWII