Did Nagasaki and Hiroshima save the world from a Nuclear War?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-03-2012, 05:36 PM
Did Nagasaki and Hiroshima save the world from a Nuclear War?
Had the nuclear bomb never been used in World War II do you think it possible that both participants in the Cold War would have been less reluctant to resort to nuclear weapons?

Nothing can justify what happened at Nagasaki or Hiroshima, no excuses can be made. The sins of the few can not be forgiven, but the loss of many may have been the salvation of everyone.

The last time I seriously thought about the nuclear bombing, I was a Roman Catholic, I thought the means justified, and those who died would go to heaven.

Now, I'm an atheist, the means will never be justified, but the victims could be the saviors of all humanity. I only hope they found peace. Forget the Japanese internment camps that brought me to look into Nagasaki and Hiroshima again., they are nothing when compared to this.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheArcticSage's post
10-03-2012, 05:54 PM
RE: Did Nagasaki and Hiroshima save the world from a Nuclear War?
I am a proponent that the bombing of Pearl Harbor saved the world from Nuclear War... so yes it would agree with your point but go to a further point in history that had more impact.

The Manhattan Project was agreed to begin 2 months before the Pearl Harbor attacks, so the USA was going to have the technology. They had more urgency after the attack but the weapons were on the way to being built.

People had always said things to me how if Japan didn't wake the sleeping giant they and the Nazi's would be ruling the world to this day. Even some sci-fi novel I saw once had the alternate history of the US being split between Nazi and Japanese control.

Yet I was thinking if anything did encourage the USA to join the force once they had the weapons it could of happened with England being even more destroyed. I just imagine there could of been a chaotic unleash of the weapons across Europe and who knows if the Germans by that point could of had bombs capable to destroy vast areas of the world too. It's been said they were close and it's how the Soviets got the power when they swooped up those scientists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-03-2012, 09:24 PM
RE: Did Nagasaki and Hiroshima save the world from a Nuclear War?
I think it is more logical to say that the use of said weapons discouraged their utilization during the Cold War. Considering that the destruction had been witnessed publicly two times in a row.

Quote:Nothing can justify what happened at Nagasaki or Hiroshima, no excuses can be made. The sins of the few can not be forgiven, but the loss of many may have been the salvation of everyone.

This statement, I believe, is a little blind and childish. To be honest, it was a decision between two evils. Pick the lesser of the two. Continue a war that could have continued for a year or two more? Invade the main island of Japan? More lives, on both sides, could have been lost had they both kept fighting.

Of course, the use of nuclear weapons was truly an atrocity. Killing the innocent civilians with a wave of heat so awesome that it could sear the shadows of people into the ground is disturbing to no end. E=MC2 is definitely something not to be messed with, and I think that is something the world learned during World War II.

Now to finish my post, how are you comparing an almost instantaneous death to the imprisonment of the Asian people? I understand how both are bad, but the previous is an entirely different circumstance.

Welcome to war. It is evil. There are endless renegade decisions, with absolutely no paragon.

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-03-2012, 09:46 PM
RE: Did Nagasaki and Hiroshima save the world from a Nuclear War?
(10-03-2012 09:24 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Now to finish my post, how are you comparing an almost instantaneous death to the imprisonment of the Asian people? I understand how both are bad, but the previous is an entirely different circumstance.

Welcome to war. It is evil. There are endless renegade decisions, with absolutely no paragon.

My search for death rates at the concentration camps in the U.S. were fruitless, eventually one thing led to another and I am then looking into the nuclear bombing of these cities.

Death for many, was not 'instantaneous', but slow, and painful... their skin melting from their bodies... oh yes... I only wish it had been instantaneous to prevent a multitude of people from suffering great injuries. Yet my wishes are unfulfilled and the only thing left for which I can do anything about is the prevention from such a horrid thing from ever happening again.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2012, 03:23 AM
RE: Did Nagasaki and Hiroshima save the world from a Nuclear War?
The only thing that was slow and painful was for the survivors. They developed cancer, indirectly, from the massive amounts of radiation.

I can guarantee that nobody survived this shock wave or radiation blast longer than a few seconds.

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2012, 10:05 AM (This post was last modified: 11-03-2012 10:10 AM by Dunhill808.)
RE: Did Nagasaki and Hiroshima save the world from a Nuclear War?
(10-03-2012 05:54 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Even some sci-fi novel I saw once had the alternate history of the US being split between Nazi and Japanese control.

Your thinking of The Man in the High Castle by Philip K Dick. Its one of his books that would make a really good Twilight Zone episode but a boring film.

Edit: Forgot to mention: I agree with the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki primarily on the grounds that every military analyst that I've read (and I've read a lot) agrees that this saved both American and Japanese lives. The invasion of Japan, known as Operation Downfall, would have cost millions of American lives and possible tens of millions of Japanese civilians. I hate to think in such callous a manner as simple numbers, but it was a far lesser evil.

"Gary, it's burning, what we gonna do"
-Bill Bailey
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2012, 10:26 AM
RE: Did Nagasaki and Hiroshima save the world from a Nuclear War?
(11-03-2012 10:05 AM)Dunhill808 Wrote:  
(10-03-2012 05:54 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Even some sci-fi novel I saw once had the alternate history of the US being split between Nazi and Japanese control.

Your thinking of The Man in the High Castle by Philip K Dick. Its one of his books that would make a really good Twilight Zone episode but a boring film.

Edit: Forgot to mention: I agree with the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki primarily on the grounds that every military analyst that I've read (and I've read a lot) agrees that this saved both American and Japanese lives. The invasion of Japan, known as Operation Downfall, would have cost millions of American lives and possible tens of millions of Japanese civilians. I hate to think in such callous a manner as simple numbers, but it was a far lesser evil.

The price varies for unconditional surrender, the price varies when you bomb cities without giving thought to civilian casualties. It's not that they wanted to save lives, so much as they wanted a quick way to win the war. They didn't want to end the war they wanted to win it no matter the cost.

I don't think you realize the seriousness of using an atomic bomb. The U.S. murdered hundreds of thousands of civilians. And that's just for the atomic bombs... this is not counting other civilian casualties of the war. There is no justification for that, if they took more care when invading they could greatly reduce civilian casualties. Alas they were ruthless as any other country... such things are only meant as excuses. I would have no such thing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2012, 11:00 AM
RE: Did Nagasaki and Hiroshima save the world from a Nuclear War?
(11-03-2012 10:26 AM)TheArcticSage Wrote:  
(11-03-2012 10:05 AM)Dunhill808 Wrote:  
(10-03-2012 05:54 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Even some sci-fi novel I saw once had the alternate history of the US being split between Nazi and Japanese control.

Your thinking of The Man in the High Castle by Philip K Dick. Its one of his books that would make a really good Twilight Zone episode but a boring film.

Edit: Forgot to mention: I agree with the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki primarily on the grounds that every military analyst that I've read (and I've read a lot) agrees that this saved both American and Japanese lives. The invasion of Japan, known as Operation Downfall, would have cost millions of American lives and possible tens of millions of Japanese civilians. I hate to think in such callous a manner as simple numbers, but it was a far lesser evil.

The price varies for unconditional surrender, the price varies when you bomb cities without giving thought to civilian casualties. It's not that they wanted to save lives, so much as they wanted a quick way to win the war. They didn't want to end the war they wanted to win it no matter the cost.

I don't think you realize the seriousness of using an atomic bomb. The U.S. murdered hundreds of thousands of civilians. And that's just for the atomic bombs... this is not counting other civilian casualties of the war. There is no justification for that, if they took more care when invading they could greatly reduce civilian casualties. Alas they were ruthless as any other country... such things are only meant as excuses. I would have no such thing.

From the way I read it, they very much did take into account the civilian population. They recognized that not only would mass casualties occur from a land invasion due to the simple geography of Japan, which would force combat within civilian populated areas, but also that the Japanese populace was very likely take up arms against the invasion force. This was not the civilian population that we know in today's wars, this was tens of millions of people who had been trained and were ready to pick up the nearest pointed object and charge at soldiers.

The fact that they considered the cost/benefit of both civilian and military lives shows that they were not willing to win at any cost. They took the opportunity to use an alternative (admittedly untested) route that ultimately, thou horrific, was the more humane and efficient.......

…...and I feel really fucking dirty for just having typed that.

"Gary, it's burning, what we gonna do"
-Bill Bailey
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2012, 11:07 AM
RE: Did Nagasaki and Hiroshima save the world from a Nuclear War?
I don't believe that dropping the bombs was primarily about ending the war or saving lives. Japan wasn't far from finished anyway, the dropping of the bomb was premature at best and total overkill at worst, the dropping of two was just plain ridiculous.

I think the actual reason it was dropped in the circumstances was because the Americans wanted to test it's effectiveness. I also find it a bit of a co-incidence that America dropped two bombs and as far as I know they both had different cores. Almost as though they wanted to see which was most effective.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2012, 11:25 AM
RE: Did Nagasaki and Hiroshima save the world from a Nuclear War?
(11-03-2012 11:07 AM)Hughsie Wrote:  I don't believe that dropping the bombs was primarily about ending the war or saving lives. Japan wasn't far from finished anyway, the dropping of the bomb was premature at best and total overkill at worst, the dropping of two was just plain ridiculous.

I think the actual reason it was dropped in the circumstances was because the Americans wanted to test it's effectiveness. I also find it a bit of a co-incidence that America dropped two bombs and as far as I know they both had different cores. Almost as though they wanted to see which was most effective.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here.

The rational behind dropping the second bomb was that the US believed that the Japanese Generals would see the first bomb as a one off, and pass it off to the the Emperor as being far less costly than it actually was. They dropped the second bomb to make the fact that the US had such a capability unavoidable to the Emperor and the civilian populace. They further augmented this strategy by preemptively spreading disinformation that the US had about a hundred bombs and could drop one every three days for the next year, exactly why the second bomb was dropped three days after the first. In reality they only had the two. Basically it was the single most deadly deception campaign ever devised.

If it wasn't for the soul crushing cost of life, it would actually be pretty fucking impressive.

"Gary, it's burning, what we gonna do"
-Bill Bailey
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  CSICOP open letter? - Subtle world hypothesis Luminon 44 1,489 31-10-2013 04:51 PM
Last Post: Luminon
  the end of the world Drunkin Druid 29 1,188 21-12-2012 08:34 PM
Last Post: Misanthropik
  The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of The World by Niall Ferguson Grassy Knoll 16 1,032 29-09-2012 06:16 AM
Last Post: Humakt
  Apocalypse Never: Earliest Mayan Calendar Found, World Not Ending Quidsane 16 1,699 28-06-2012 10:17 PM
Last Post: andrew stockton
  Do you believe in the New World Order? JoesphStalinCommunism 22 2,867 04-04-2012 01:54 PM
Last Post: ThePolymath
  End of the world!... again UnderTheMicroscope 34 2,246 28-10-2011 05:17 AM
Last Post: UnderTheMicroscope
Forum Jump: